DEATH OF A MEMBER

Mr. Speaker: I regret to have to report to the House the death of the right hon. Robin Cook, the Member for Livingston. I am sure that Members on both sides of the House will join me in mourning the loss of a colleague and in extending our sympathy to the right hon. Member's family and friends.

WRIT ISSUED DURING THE ADJOURNMENT

Mr. Speaker acquainted the House that he had issued, during the Adjournment and pursuant to the Recess Elections Act 1975, a warrant to the Clerk of the Crown to make out a new writ for the electing of a Member to serve in this present Parliament for Livingston, in the room of the right hon. Robin Cook, deceased.

Oral Answers to Questions

HOME DEPARTMENT

The Secretary of State was asked—

Border Security

Mark Lancaster: What assessment he has made of the effectiveness of (a) electronic and (b) manned borders; and if he will make a statement.

Tony McNulty: We are constantly reviewing the efficacy of staffed borders on a regular, intelligence-led basis. There are currently 41 staffed ports, of which 16 are staffed 24 hours a day. We are developing an e-borders programme and a borders management programme, and will deliver a more integrated secure border based on both electronic and staffed components.

Mark Lancaster: I am grateful to the Minister for his answer. I think that he said that only 16 of the official ports were manned 24 hours a day. Why are the other 13 not manned as well?

Tony McNulty: The hon. Gentleman should, if he is serious, ask why the 350 ports up and down the country, including regularised and unregularised airfields, are not staffed—[Interruption.] I should be very keen to hear the shadow Chancellor's comments on the Conservatives' manifesto commitments. It is clear that we must improve our borders, and we are using technology to do so. Some of that is being implemented already. Hon. Members will be aware that embarkation controls were first lifted in 1994, and quite rightly. We need to adopt an intelligence-led approach, and that is what we are doing. In answer to the hon. Gentleman's question, some ports are staffed, and some utilise electronics. Over the course of time, we shall get to a stage where we have the secure borders that we deserve.

Andrew MacKinlay: Why are the 350 ports not covered by a dedicated police force? Since long before it was fashionable for Her Majesty's Opposition to do so, I have been telling Labour and Tory Ministers that we need a dedicated police force, particularly at our sea ports, to combat organised crime, to wage war against people trafficking and to complement our efforts to wage war against terrorism. It really is time for this Government to appoint a proper dedicated police force—along the lines of the British Transport police or the Ministry of Defence police—so that our sea ports can be secure. A highly mobile force could ensure good coverage of the 350 ports to complement the work of our immigration and customs services.

Tony McNulty: My answer was a direct response to a question about ports that are staffed 24 hours a day. We do not believe that it is appropriate to staff 350-plus ports on a 24-hour basis, come what may, and I believe that others who investigate these matters would agree with that. The present arrangements have the potential for mobility, and I believe that the job is being done well by the UK immigration service, the police and Customs and Excise. I would ask my hon. Friend not to go down the path taken by the Conservatives of maligning public servants who are dedicated to their jobs.

Eric Forth: When is the Minister going to move on from review and waffle to action? All that he gives us is the usual old story that we have come to expect from this Government and from his Department: endless reviews and endless excuses. When will the people of this country be reassured that they can be safe from intrusion by people whom we do not want here and who should not be here?

Tony McNulty: They will not be reassured by repeating what the Conservative Government did in replacing embarkation controls with nothing in 1994. E-borders and our border management programme are a reality that is being implemented as we speak. We have in place an airline liaison network that is second to none, which is starting to address the problem, long before there is any incursion, on an international basis—something that is being repeated in other countries throughout the world. What is being done is being done now. I shall leave waffle and inaction to the right hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends.

Chris McCafferty: In the light of the recent case of women-trafficking to the UK, will the Minister tell the House which particular measures are in place to prevent the trafficking of women and to bring the perpetrators to justice?

Tony McNulty: We have made extensive progress in terms of trafficking; in only the last couple of weeks there have been significant high-profile cases, not least the arrest in Birmingham last week, about which I can say no more. We have made human trafficking a cornerstone of all that we are doing in the Justice and Home Affairs Council during our presidency and we want to ensure that work persists. Those matters are best dealt with at European and wider international levels and the Government have an excellent record in that regard.

David Davis: rose—

Hon. Members: Hear, hear.

David Davis: I am flattered. The Labour party must have been watching the Tory party conference. They should enjoy themselves; we allow heckling.
	Whether e-borders or physical borders, neither work if they are not properly policed. Can the Minister confirm the number of special branch officers who are established in our ports and airports and can he confirm that the number is actually less than two thirds of the proper establishment? Does that not reveal to the world that the Government have simply lost control of our borders?

Tony McNulty: That was certainly better than last week, but the right hon. Gentleman can probably do better none the less.
	The number of special branch people at our ports, as the right hon. Gentleman should be more than aware, is an operational matter that I shall not discuss across the Dispatch Box, but I can tell him that we are in the middle of recruiting some additional 600-plus immigration officials, many of whom will be deployed at our sea ports and airports.

David Davis: Let me help the Minister with the facts. There are supposed to be 1,400 special branch officers protecting our borders; in fact, there are only 900. That is two years after a report from Her Majesty's inspectorate that described the arrangement as wholly inadequate—a point demonstrated when Hussein Osman, a terror suspect from 21 July, blithely left the country via Waterloo station without being checked at all. Why is it that two years after being warned the Government took no effective action to stop suspected terrorists moving in and out of our country whenever they like?

Tony McNulty: That is simply not the case. Nor is it the case that only special branch can control our borders; the right hon. Gentleman knows that. A mixture of our customs and immigration people, our police special branch and others deal with the matter and they do so with real operational success. I shall not go into the details of an individual case although I am happy to share the details I have with the right hon. Gentleman should he so choose. Do not malign our public servants, they are doing an excellent job in the most extreme circumstances and I have looked long and hard to find in any shadow Budget mention of the 600-plus immigration officers we are recruiting as we speak.

Denis MacShane: One of the problems with our borders is the trafficking of young women into Britain to act as sex slaves, many of whom are beaten, intimidated and sometimes tortured. All of them are living in fear. Does my hon. Friend agree that when a woman is intimidated, frightened, living in fear and then has sex with someone there is only one word to describe that act? It is rape.

Tony McNulty: I entirely agree with my right hon. Friend. As I said before, we are doing much in terms of human trafficking both in itself and as part of our wider policy, including in many of the eastern European states most directly concerned in providing those women, but rape it is and it is as rape that it should be recorded.

Drugs (Prisons)

Henry Bellingham: What estimate he has made of the quantities of drugs taken into prisons by (a) prisoners, (b) visitors, (c) prison officers and (d) other means in the last period for which figures are available.

Fiona Mactaggart: We do not collect information on estimates of quantities centrally. The mandatory drug testing programme, which is the principal means of measuring drug misuse in prisons, shows that the percentage of positive results has halved since 1997.
	Recently, the Home Office commissioned qualitative research that identifies supply routes. These were, in order: social visits; mail; newly arrived prisoners; staff; over the perimeter; and after-court appearances. Measures are already in place to target those routes and the report will inform the further development of strategies to reduce the supply of drugs in prisons.

Henry Bellingham: I am grateful to the Minister and look forward to that report. May I refer her to a written question that I tabled in July? In her reply, she pointed out that a member of staff at Wandsworth was investigated for drug possession in July—not just a normal member of staff, but a junior governor who was found in possession of drugs. As I understand it he did not even face disciplinary proceedings, which seems strange. Does the Minister agree that the drugs problem in prisons is reaching crisis levels and that there should be a zero-tolerance policy towards members of staff who deal in drugs? Will the Government get a grip on the situation?

Fiona Mactaggart: Any member of prison staff who is found dealing in drugs will be referred to the police for criminal prosecution. That is our policy, and that is how we will always proceed where there is evidence to do so. It is much more important to ensure that people face the full process of the criminal law, rather than other action in relation to their employment, and we do that. I agree that we need to have zero tolerance, and that is why I am pleased that we are in the process of reducing the extent of drug misuse in prison.

Paul Flynn: Is not it true that, although there has been a reduction, the position remains as it has been for many years now under two Governments? The Minister recently told me that, in the past five years, not a single prison in Britain has been free from illegal drug use. Given the consequences of that in terms of the spread of disease in Britain, particularly AIDS and hepatitis, would it not be better if we concentrated our resources on harm reduction, especially on allowing needle exchanges?

Fiona Mactaggart: I visited a prison the other day where mandatory drug testing has produced zero positive test results for a number of months in succession. I am anxious about the fact that that was outcome for just a number of months, but it is possible, as that prison has showed, to seek to achieve drug-free prisons. We should continue to aim for that goal, but we also need to help the very large proportion of people who come into prison with existing drug misuse problems and to reduce the harm that they face, including when they are released. That is part of the work done in prison by the CARATS—counselling, assessment, referral, advice and throughcare—workers.

John Pugh: Would the Minister care to comment on a letter from my constituent who wrote that his son
	"has been trying very hard to stay off drugs but every prison he has been in is over run with drugs which, given his 25 year addiction, is proving very difficult",
	and that his son tells him that things are not getting better, but much worse?

Fiona Mactaggart: An individual prisoner might say that, and indeed that might be his experience. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for expressing his constituent's concerns, but we are working hard and effectively to win the struggle. Any prisoner can go on to a voluntary drug-testing regime, where they are tested at least 18 times a year, and there are drug-free wings in many prisons, so we already put in place the means to support those prisoners who are determined to end their drug abuse.

Mary Creagh: Will the Minister join me in congratulating the staff and governors at Wakefield prison, where there is a 1 per cent. drug incidence, as revealed by the mandatory testing regime? Will she make time in her ministerial schedule to come to Wakefield to see the very strict checks that are put in place for every visitor to the prison, whether the chief of police, the Member of Parliament or the Minister? It is a really impressive sight.

Fiona Mactaggart: It is indeed, and our prisons put in a lot of effort. We should not forget that they largely deal with a group of people who have massive drug problems—about 80 per cent. of people coming into prisons have used drugs, and 55 per cent. of them say that they have been addicted. That represents a big struggle, and it is right that we should be determined to overcome it. I am always keen to visit prisons to see their hard work to tackle the menace of drug use in prison.

Cheryl Gillan: The Minister might like to know that every prison I have visited has admitted to having a problem with illegal drugs being brought in. More than three quarters of all prisoners admit to having taken drugs in prison—now, most commonly, heroin and cannabis— and more than half of all our prisoners admit that their offences are related to drug taking. Why then do only half the prisoners who start drug treatment courses complete them in prison and why do only a third of our young offender institutions provide intensive drug treatment programmes? Is that not a disgraceful record for a Government who said that they would be tough on crime and tough on the causes of crime?

Fiona Mactaggart: It is not. Every prison, of course, has a struggle to deal with drugs. I think I was quite clear about that in what I said earlier. When a prison deals with a population the vast majority of whose offending is drug related, it is inevitable that it will focus on the issue of drugs.
	If the hon. Lady stops trying to interrupt me, I will deal with the issue of intensive treatment that she raised. One of the things that we rightly do in prisons is develop particular expertise in particular centres of, for example, intensive treatment programmes or particular education programmes to rehabilitate prisoners. We do not carry out such programmes everywhere, but we offer treatment of some kind in every single prison in the country.

Commission for Racial Equality

Philip Davies: How many complaints of (a) racial discrimination, (b) sex discrimination and (c) disability discrimination have been made by the staff of the Commission for Racial Equality in the last five years.

Paul Goggins: In the past five years, staff of the Commission for Racial Equality have made one complaint of racial discrimination, two complaints of sex discrimination and one complaint of disability discrimination. In addition, they have made four complaints of discrimination involving both race and sex.

Philip Davies: I thank the Minister for that reply. Is it not incredible that the body that is given taxpayers' money to stamp out race discrimination in this country actually suffers from complaints of race discrimination itself and uses taxpayers' money to settle some of these cases out of court? Is this not a grotesque waste of money, and is it not time that this politically correct body was abolished before it does any more damage to race relations in this country?

Paul Goggins: The hon. Gentleman is right in one respect: the Commission for Racial Equality has a very important job to do in working towards the elimination of racial discrimination in our country. It does a very good job too.
	I might add to the hon. Gentleman that, of the eight complaints received over the five-year period, only six went to employment tribunals and, of those, none was upheld.

Young Offenders (Deaths)

Chris Ruane: How many children and young people have died in (a) prison, (b) young offender institutions, (c) secure training centres and (d) local authority secure children's homes in each of the past 15 years.

Charles Clarke: In summary, the number of deaths between 1 January 1990 and 3 October 2005 of those aged 20 and under was 84 in prisons; 96 in young offender institutions; and two in secure training centres, the first of which opened in April 1998. Total figures in respect of local authority secure children's homes are not available. I shall provide the full detailed figures to my hon. Friend and place them in the House Library.

Chris Ruane: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. Joseph Scholes is one of the statistics that he has just quoted, and he was a 16-year-old boy from my constituency who committed suicide in a lonely prison cell in Stoke Heath prison. I have been working with his mother, Yvonne Scholes, for the past 18 months to highlight the issue, and I simply wish to relay the concern that she and others have that no parent should have to go through what she has been through. When will proper accommodation be made available for these young vulnerable people?

Charles Clarke: First, may I pay tribute to the work of my hon. Friend in working on Mr. Scholes's tragic case, which he has been doing in the year and a half since the tragedy took place? My hon. Friend will be aware of the action being taken through the Sentencing Guidelines Council, the chief inspector of the social services inspectorate and the Youth Justice Board to try to ensure that similar deaths do not occur in the future. The Youth Justice Board's draft strategy was published in November 2004 as a consultation document reflecting the lessons from Joseph's case. That strategy has now been approved by Ministers and the full outcome will be published shortly. I hope that it will go at least some way to meeting the concerns that my hon. Friend has expressed.

David Wilshire: I have a women's prison in my constituency. As the Home Secretary will know, some women give birth while serving a prison sentence, although their children are not born in prison. When he is giving answers to such questions in which statistics are produced about numbers of child deaths, will he assure us that infants who die due to medical tragedies that have absolutely nothing to do with prisons will be excluded from the political debate, or alternatively that such statistics will be marked with some asterisk to show that that was the case?

Charles Clarke: As I said, I am putting full, detailed figures in the House of Commons Library. I shall ensure that specific reference is made to the concerns that the hon. Gentleman reasonably expresses.

Barry Sheerman: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the figures are chilling, whichever way one tries to interpret them? Is he aware that the sensitivity of support for young people in prison must be examined? Has he read the report by the Education and Skills Committee on prison education, and how soon will we get a revolution in the way in which we meet the needs of young people in prison?

Charles Clarke: The adjective "chilling" is a fair one to use, as my hon. Friend did. I have seen the report by his Select Committee. My colleagues and I have had detailed meetings with the Youth Justice Board to decide the best action to deal with the issues that he raises. I can commit the Government wholeheartedly to reducing the figures. The situation is a tragedy, so we will look at all possible sources, including his Select Committee's report, when deciding the best thing to do.

Mark Oaten: But as well as these appalling deaths, is the Home Secretary aware that the number of children in secure centres who have self-harmed has doubled—last year the figure was 456? At the same time, 10 people working in such centres who should have been caring for those children have been dismissed for inappropriate action and sexual activity towards children and falsifying suicide watch figures? Is that not an appalling indictment of the way in which the Government are looking after children in such centres?

Charles Clarke: I do not accept the hon. Gentleman's point. The truth is that we are considering immensely disturbed people with whom it is very difficult to deal in the most effective way, which was why I supported what my hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman) said about the need to examine carefully evidence about the best way in which to proceed. I shall not join a witch hunt of specific members of staff who are dealing with difficult circumstances, but I am ready to acknowledge the sincerity of the hon. Gentleman's question and the need for us to be able to take steps to ensure that such tragedies are minimised.

Nick Palmer: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the incidents of deaths are really the tip of the iceberg? Each of us who know constituents whose children have been sent to any of the four categories of institution reckon that the children will find it extremely difficult to have a decent and successful life afterwards. Will he consider setting up a committee to investigate the best way forward, with international comparisons, to deal with vulnerable children in such a way that we can reduce the impact for them and society?

Charles Clarke: I agree with my hon. Friend that the situation is the tip of a very frightening iceberg, but we are taking urgent action now. The Youth Justice Board is examining the matter in great detail and listening to advice, such as that from the Select Committee. I would be happy if anyone would like to offer positive proposals about the way in which we could better deal with the matter, but no one should walk away—I know that my hon. Friend does not—from the difficult and problematic issues that must be addressed.

Border Security

Edward Vaizey: What plans the Government have to introduce 24-hour security at ports of entry.

Andy Burnham: There is 24-hour cover at the UK's main 16 ports of entry and a further 25 are regularly staffed. Officers are deployed to unmanned ports to meet specific arrivals when necessary. There are no plans to have personnel manning the 350 ports for 24 hours a day. We are, however, extending the immigration service mobile response capacity based on intelligence to respond to any new or emerging threats.

Edward Vaizey: The Minister is a fine public servant and I have no wish to malign him in any way, so I simply note with regret that the Government have scrapped embarkation controls and reduced the number of immigration officials, that there are just 10 permanent staff in one in five of our ports and, as the Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Nationality admitted earlier, that a plethora of organisations are responsible for our borders. As an exponent of the new politics, may I reach across the Chamber and agree with the hon. Member for Thurrock (Andrew Mackinlay) that the time has come for a national security force, and urge the Minister to issue proposals for such a force immediately?

Andy Burnham: I was very interested to hear from a self-styled exponent of new politics. As such, why is the hon. Gentleman sticking with an old-fashioned failed pledge in the Conservative manifesto to have 24-hour coverage at ports? He considers himself something of a moderniser, and I refer him to the article by the hon. Member for Buckingham (John Bercow)—I do not know whether he still speaks to him—in The Independent today, entitled "Conservative immigration policy is simply wrong".

Keith Vaz: Does my hon. Friend agree that to succeed, we need the full co-operation of our European Union partners? We have taken steps during our presidency, and there is another meeting of the Justice and Home Affairs Council this Wednesday. Will he and his colleagues look at the operation of the external borders agency to see whether there is a way to improve or extend its scope to help us in this difficult matter?

Andy Burnham: As always on such issues, my hon. Friend is right. Good co-operation has delivered results for Britain. I refer to the juxtaposed controls introduced in Calais and the development of biometric standards. He is right that the border agency has a role in securing the external border of the EU, especially where it fronts transit countries, such as Ukraine. I take on board what he says. We all want to see progress soon.

Edward Garnier: Why is not the Minister even the slightest bit embarrassed that if someone shouts "Nonsense" at the Foreign Secretary, that person is arrested by the terrorism squad, but if someone is one of the tens of thousands of illegal entrants into this country who know that our laws on border controls are nonsense, no one seems to do anything about it?

Andy Burnham: I am not sure how that question follows. The hon. and learned Gentleman stood on an election manifesto that committed the Conservative party to 24-hour coverage of all 350 ports of this country. I am happy to stand here and say that that ludicrous policy would have wasted many millions of pounds. Instead, the Conservatives should have deployed an intelligence-led approach, which is what we are doing. I have no embarrassment in defending our policy because it is right.

ASBOs (Plymouth)

Linda Gilroy: If he will make a statement on the use of antisocial behaviour orders in Plymouth.

Hazel Blears: Antisocial behaviour orders are one of a number of tools being used in Plymouth as part of their local strategy to tackle antisocial behaviour. Local practitioners have taken a robust stance against antisocial behaviour and report that ASBOs have been effectively used alongside other interventions, such as acceptable behaviour contracts and injunctions.

Linda Gilroy: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. I hope she agrees that it is important to give confidence to victims. In reviewing antisocial behaviour orders, will she consider changing the law so that appeals by perpetrators involve a paper-based system rather than a full rehearing, which means that the victims have to give evidence again and ties up the valuable resources—the time and the commitment—of antisocial behaviour units.

Hazel Blears: I am only too well aware of the impact that antisocial behaviour can have on victims and witnesses. I congratulate Elaine Holland and Jane Kemp from Plymouth who bravely took a stand and have since set up their own helpline to help other victims and witnesses in the Plymouth area. My hon. Friend has been a tireless campaigner on those issues in her local community for many years. I am happy to consider her suggestion. I am always keen to see how we can make our antisocial behaviour legislation focused, effective and practical in protecting the rights of the law-abiding majority.

Gary Streeter: I am sure that antisocial behaviour orders have a part to play, but can the Minister explain why, despite five years of ASBOs, antisocial behaviour by young people in my constituency, in particular in Plympton and Plymstock, two suburbs of Plymouth, is getting worse? Will she review the use of ASBOs to see whether the Government can come up with additional measures that might help to take some of the menace and intimidation off the streets of Plymouth?

Hazel Blears: I have always said that our campaign against antisocial behaviour is not simply about enforcement, important though that is; it is also about support. We now have more than 6,500 parenting orders, and we have recently introduced the individual support order, which runs alongside the antisocial behaviour order to try to tackle the causes of antisocial behaviour. These are significant issues which affect the constituency of every Member of the House, so we must have a range of tools to enable us to tackle them. We are being tough on antisocial behaviour and tough on the causes of antisocial behaviour. I can tell the hon. Gentleman that in recent years, according to the British crime survey, the number of people experiencing antisocial behaviour as a significant problem has decreased significantly. Clearly, however, we have much more to do.

Criminal Assets

James McGovern: What the total amount of criminal assets recovered in 2004–05 was.

Paul Goggins: The total value of criminal assets recovered in 2004–05 in England, Wales and Northern Ireland was £84.4 million. That was a record amount exceeding the previous year's total of £54.5 million.

James McGovern: I am grateful for that response. The United States in particular has made great play of the amount of money it has seized in terrorist assets. What assessment does the Minister make of the deterrent value of such actions and statements? Does he favour a more public approach to the seizure of criminal assets in general and terrorist assets in particular?

Paul Goggins: I thank my hon. Friend for his question. Whether those assets are funding terrorist activity or other criminal activity, the message from this Parliament and this Government is that they can no longer be relied on because we want not only to prosecute and convict people for the offences that they commit but to strip them of their assets and make sure that the proceeds go back into funding front-line services.

William McCrea: Will the Minister ensure that every assistance will be given to those seeking to recover the criminal assets of Slab Murphy, a leading Provisional IRA man—especially in Manchester?

Paul Goggins: I can confirm that there was a certain amount of activity in Greater Manchester last week, when searches were carried out on a number of domestic and business properties associated with two Manchester-based business men. The properties are estimated to be worth over £30 million. The information that is being gathered as a result of those searches will be reviewed, and a decision will be made in due course whether to apply for a freezing order or an interim receiving order.

Adrian Bailey: I welcome the figures that the Minister has given us. The work of the Assets Recovery Agency has particular significance in Northern Ireland, given the problems of prosecuting former paramilitaries there. Will the Minister assure me that the agency will pursue those former paramilitaries who have made money illegally in Northern Ireland and invested it in legal businesses in the rest of the UK, that they will be prosecuted and that their assets will be recovered to the communities, as should be the case?

Paul Goggins: I can confirm that. As my hon. Friend probably knows, the Assets Recovery Agency has a dedicated office in Belfast. I am very encouraged by the fact that last year the agency raised £4.7 million and restrained £17 million of assets. The message is clear: whether people are from Northern Ireland or the mainland, if they have assets built on criminality—if they have houses, yachts and a lifestyle based on criminality—we are after them, and we will reclaim those assets and put them to good public use.

Mark Pritchard: Does the Minister agree that the current system does not incentivise police forces such as West Mercia because assets and cash recovered go to the Treasury, which keeps most of that money rather than returning it to police forces, which is what they want? Would not police forces be incentivised if they were allowed to keep all the money rather than it being creamed off by the Treasury?

Paul Goggins: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will be encouraged to learn that only a few weeks ago I was able to send back £13 million of recovered assets directly to front-line policing. We estimate that in the coming year some £30 million will be recycled to police front-line services. Indeed, in 2007–08, half of all money gained by front-line agencies will be returned to them. There is a clear incentive to law enforcement agencies operating in our communities: the more cash and assets they seize, the more money they will get back.

Lindsay Hoyle: The figure mentioned of £84.4 million is presumably spread across the different police forces. Is the money divided equally or is it given back to the police force that seized it, such as that associated with drug dealing in Lancashire?

Paul Goggins: The money is returned in proportion to the level of assets recovered by a particular police force. I draw my hon. Friend's attention to a statement that I made before the summer recess. He might want to check how well his police force has done, as might many other Members.

Asylum Seekers

Phyllis Starkey: What his Department's policy is on returning failed asylum seekers to Somalia.

Charles Clarke: As with failed asylum seekers of all nationalities, Somali claimants who have been found by the Home Office and the independent appeals process not to be in need of international protection and who therefore have no legal basis of stay in the UK are expected to return to Somalia. The Home Office works with the International Organisation for Migration to facilitate voluntary returns of failed asylum seekers to any region of Somalia. Where an individual does not return voluntarily, removal may be enforced. As with all countries, returns of failed asylum seekers are considered on an individual case basis, and the circumstances in the country are taken fully into account.

Phyllis Starkey: I thank the Home Secretary for that clarification. Given that Somalia is the ultimate failed state, I am slightly disturbed that we are returning people there. However, if we are, I have to report that I have a number of constituents who are failed asylum seekers who have not been given any indication of how they are supposed to get back to Somalia or offered the route to do so, and who are simply being left unable to work and without benefits. I urge the Home Secretary to try to ensure that his policy is joined up on the ground, because at the moment it seems that we are simply trying to starve people back to Somalia, when we ought to be acting humanely and giving them the means to be transported back rather than left here in limbo where, I am afraid, they are tempted to move into crime and illegality.

Charles Clarke: All the main applicant failed asylum seekers who were returned in the first half of 2005 to Somalia were voluntary returnees. However, I take very seriously what my hon. Friend has just said to me and I will ask my office to get in touch with hers in order to see how we can facilitate such voluntary returns in the case of her constituents.

Daniel Kawczynski: The problem is that most of the Somalian Government are in exile in Kenya and fearful of returning to their country. Is the Secretary of State talking with the Foreign Office about its pursuing direct negotiations with the exiled Somalian Government in Kenya to try to secure their support in resolving the situation?

Charles Clarke: We are in touch with the Foreign Office regularly on all cases, precisely to facilitate such situations. I emphasise again that the security of the circumstances in the country in question is of principal concern to us in deciding on any removal.

Jim Sheridan: What recent steps he has taken to tackle illegal working by asylum seekers in the UK.

Charles Clarke: The Government are firmly committed to tackling illegal working from whatever source—overstayers, illegal immigrants or asylum seekers. Our strategy involves increasing enforcement, encouraging compliance by business, and developing joint working between a range of agencies responsible for enforcing workplace regulations. We have taken steps to strengthen the legislation on preventing illegal migrant working by reforming section 8 of the Asylum and Immigration Act 1996 and by supporting my hon. Friend's initiative on gangmaster licensing, on which he is to be highly complimented. We are also introducing new measures for a civil penalty regime and a tougher criminal offence for employers in the Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Bill, currently before the House.

Jim Sheridan: I thank my hon. Friend for that response. He will be aware that the Gangmasters (Licensing) Act 2004 was set up to protect asylum seekers or any other migrant worker from exploitation by unscrupulous employers, but I am concerned by reports reaching me of civil service interference with the smooth operation of the Act. Will he therefore assure the House that the Government will continue to support the Act in order to protect vulnerable workers, that the same level of resources will continue to be made available, and that any interference with or dilution of the Act will be brought before this House?

Tony McNulty: I can certainly give my hon. Friend that assurance. He knows that all the Act's key provisions are now in force and that regulations establishing the Gangmasters Licensing Authority were made in March. The authority will drive out illegal employment practices by agricultural labour providers. The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs consulted on the draft exclusions regulations in February and on the appeals regulations in March. The authority commenced work on 1 April and is preparing a consultation paper on licensing standards. Both DEFRA and the authority are working to ensure that licensing can be introduced from April 2006. None the less, I hear my hon. Friend's comments with concern and I shall ensure that we do what we set out to do through his Act.

Annette Brooke: What consideration has the Minister given to issuing temporary work permits to encourage legal working? One of my constituents, a talented athlete, is a failed Zimbabwean asylum seeker who has permission to stay in this country at least until February, but the notice specifically stated that he must not undertake any paid, or even unpaid, work during that considerable period.

Tony McNulty: We are always considering such matters. The hon. Lady makes a fair point, but I repeat what I have said on a number of occasions: the asylum system is not a route for economic migration. Those whose claims are unfounded and who fail in the asylum system can and should use other routes, but only after they return to their country. People tell me that the asylum system is a welfare system, an economic system, or a labour market regulatory system, but it is none of those things. It is bounded by the 1951 convention and is rightly there for those who are fleeing political persecution.

Tony Lloyd: Bearing in mind my hon. Friend's comment that the asylum system is specifically for those who fear persecution, what sense does it make for taxpayers, public spending or asylum seekers themselves if they cannot work in our society? Many asylum seekers could and would work and everyone would be better off if they were allowed to do so.

Tony McNulty: As I said, we keep that matter under constant review. Clearly, however, our aim in the first instance should be to make the decision-making process from start to finish, all the way through to the point of appeals being exhausted, as quick as possible without losing the integrity of that process. I fully accept that it is not right or proper that, sometimes after four or five years, people have exhausted the asylum process but there is still no finality.

Humfrey Malins: Does the Minister accept that the offence of illegal employment is widespread and has increased dramatically over the past eight years under the Labour Government? They have sat back and watched the problem of illegal employment growing and chosen not to enforce the existing law, with only a handful of convictions in the past eight years. In view of the Government's poor track record in that respect, how can we have any confidence in either the Minister's desire or his ability to enforce the new criminal penalty set out in clause 17 of the Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Bill?

Tony McNulty: That is a rather sad broken record. I hope that the hon. Gentleman's contributions will improve in the Committee on the Bill. A robust intellectual debate is needed on immigration and asylum policy. I hope that, like his hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (John Bercow), the hon. Gentleman will participate in that debate, rather than constantly throw out such drivel. As for his point on section 8, yes, of course it has not been terribly successful, in part because of the cumbersome nature in legal terms of the criminal dimension. It is right and proper that we, as a listening and responsive Government, review that provision and establish through the new Bill a civil penalty regime, which we think will address the problem. Make no mistake, we will deal promptly with illegal working. If the hon. Gentleman wants a serious debate, he should come and join us.

Section 30 Orders

Claire Curtis-Thomas: What assessment he has made of the effectiveness of section 30 orders in Crosby; and if he will make a statement.

Hazel Blears: Merseyside police have designated one area in Crosby under section 30 of the Anti-social Behaviour Act 2003. The power enables police to disperse groups who are causing intimidation, harassment, alarm or distress and to return unsupervised young people in public places to their homes after 9 pm. The police believe it has been an effective tool in reducing instances of antisocial behaviour in the area in question.

Claire Curtis-Thomas: Yesterday, I was in a park affected by a section 30 order. It became apparent that a little girl of 10 and a little boy of six were there alone. Their parents had no idea where they were. During the afternoon, the little girl had had a bottle of beer thrown on her and sustained an injury. What will my right hon. Friend do to tackle parents who are not responsible for their children and leave them at the mercy of gangs of boys who we would prefer to see gone from our community? What will we do to ensure that the section 30 orders that we enjoy are sustained and become a normal part of our lives so that responsible and decent citizens can enjoy their leisure time in safety?

Hazel Blears: My hon. Friend knows that I visited her area relatively recently, when both of us talked to a group of young people in Crosby who were concerned that antisocial behaviour powers should be used to protect them from antisocial behaviour. One reason why they were unable to use their local park and other facilities was that gangs were hanging around. I assure my hon. Friend that not only are we urging the use of section 30 powers, we hope to have a renewed drive on parenting orders. We have issued 6,500 parenting orders and it is crucial that parents take responsibility. It is important that dispersal orders are followed up, with action taken by the police and local authorities, to give young people more constructive things to do with their leisure time. That will be another strand of our activity. My hon. Friend made the important point that it is for parents to take responsibility for what happens to their children and their families. We shall ensure that that happens, both voluntarily and, if necessary, through parenting orders.

Asylum Seekers

Tony Baldry: What estimate he has made of the costs incurred to date by his Department on accommodation centres for asylum seekers.

Andy Burnham: A dramatic fall in the numbers of individuals claiming asylum, as well as a reduction in processing times for claims, led to a reassessment of the need for accommodation centres. The cost to date of accommodation centres is some £31 million, of which we expect to realise value from some £7.5 million if a prospective removal centre is built on the site near Bicester.

Tony Baldry: The cost thrown away on the Bicester site, according to the Minister's own parliamentary answers, is some £18.5 million. The House of Commons Library has calculated that, in Oxfordshire, £18.5 million would have bought us 3,000 trainee teachers, 600 probationary police officers and some 900 trainee nurses. Does the Minister now concede that that was a scandalous waste of money that would have been much better spent on nurses, teachers and police officers rather than being wasted on the scheme that the Government pursued for so many years?

Andy Burnham: It is true that, in the course of a protracted planning process, in which it was not only those on this side who had a hand, our measures to tackle the delays in processing asylum claims began to take effect. Now, 80 per cent. of asylum claims are taken within two months and the level of asylum support is £280 million less per year than it was in the year when the asylum accommodation centres proposal was made. The landscape has changed considerably. We think it sensible and prudent to take a decision that will mean that, over time, we will have an asylum system that enables us to process claims quickly and keep costs down.

Prisoners

Simon Hughes: What proportion of (a) remand and (b) convicted prisoners in England are in prison more than 50 miles from their family home; and if he will make a statement.

Fiona Mactaggart: As at 30 June 2005, 13 per cent. of remand prisoners and 39 per cent. of convicted prisoners held in prisons in England were over 50 miles from their home address. Supportive relationships can have a positive effect on reducing reoffending and the National Offender Management Service assists prisoners to maintain their social and family ties through the assisted visit scheme and extended family visits.

Simon Hughes: I am sure that the Minister accepts that having families nearby is very important, especially when prisoners are on remand. She will also know that prisoners whose homes are in the south of England are much more likely to be further away from home because of the nature of the prison estate. Can she make it clear that it is Government policy to ensure that the figure for those who live within 50 miles of where they are in prison increases significantly in the near future?

Fiona Mactaggart: In our expansion of the prison estate since 1997, we have focused additional prison capacity in areas such as the south-east where there was a shortage, for exactly the reasons that the hon. Gentleman identified. He is aware that the Home Secretary made a speech on 19 September to the Prison Reform Trust, in which he highlighted the importance of community and family ties, and that he intends to develop a strategy for community prisons that will connect in the way that the hon. Gentleman described. At present, our prisons are very full, particularly in the south-east of England. That has consequences for prisoners' proximity to their families. We are doing our best to mitigate those consequences.

David Taylor: Will the Minister confirm that, because there are fewer women's prisons, the average distance of women prisoners from their home tends to be larger than in the case of male prisoners? Can she say what the Government are doing in that regard? I hope that that does not include building more new private women's prisons close to population centres.

Fiona Mactaggart: My hon. Friend is right that the average distance between home and prison for a woman prisoner is 58 miles, whereas for a male prisoner it is 50 miles. We have already built additional prison capacity in the women's estate through Bronzefield and Peterborough in the south-east and eastern areas, where there was particular pressure. He also knows that the increase in the number of women in prison, which just a year ago seemed to be continuing apace, has stabilised over the past year. Although we have record numbers of men in prison, we have fewer women in prison than at this time last year. It is right to seek to reduce the use of imprisonment for women offenders where that is not necessary—where they do not represent a threat to the public—and we will continue to do so.

Information Sharing Code of Practice

Eric Illsley: If he will make a statement on the code of practice on information sharing issued in response to the Bichard report.

Hazel Blears: In response to recommendations 8 and 9 of the Bichard inquiry report, a new code of practice on police information management was laid before Parliament on 19 July this year. The code was developed for the Home Office by the National Centre for Policing Excellence, with input from the police service and others. It provides for far greater consistency in the management and sharing of information by the police service and will be underpinned by detailed operational guidance, which is currently being developed.

Eric Illsley: As I understand it, the initial code of practice drawn up under the acquisition and disclosure of communication regulations included the clearing house model. It is clear that some parts of industry established to deal with acquisition and disclosure of information have based their set-ups on that model. Can my right hon. Friend say whether the clearing house model will be retained in the final code of practice?

Hazel Blears: What I can tell my hon. Friend is that the high level code of practice is about key principles of information sharing and management. The detailed operational guidance that we are working on will contain more of that detailed tactical advice and will be issued fairly shortly. What was important about the Bichard report, which will be groundbreaking in the extent to which it changes the way the police service shares and manages information, was that it required not only changes to the way we use information, but changes to the technology that underpins information sharing across the police service to make sure that nobody ever falls through the net again, as happened in those terrible cases that led to the Bichard report.
	My hon. Friend raised a technical issue from the point of view of suppliers and I will be more than happy to look into that if he writes or speaks to me about it. I can assure him that the code of practice underpinned by the operational guidance will revolutionise the way the police service shares its information and make it much more fit for purpose.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: The Minister will be aware that better information sharing is being used as an excuse for the unpopular merging of small police forces. Will she give me an assurance that no police forces will be merged other than on the basis of pure facts and not merely on illusory cost savings that are unlikely to be prudent?

Hazel Blears: The current review resulting from Denis O'Connor's report concerns whether we can make our police forces fit for the 21st century, providing protective services to the community that we all serve. In taking forward the consultation, it is vital that forces consider how their services can be provided more efficiently and how they can provide a proper level of protection against whatever crimes we face. This is not about cost-cutting. This is about making sure that our police service is fit to do the job that we all want it to do. I look forward to receiving proposals from the hon. Gentleman's force on how it can improve its organisation to provide a better service.

Business of the House

Geoff Hoon: With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement about changes to the business of the House for this week. Before doing so, I should like to pay tribute to former distinguished Members of the House and Government who died during the summer recess.
	It is perhaps fitting that I should pay particular tribute to a former Leader of the House, Robin Cook. I assume that he would have regarded his time as Foreign Secretary as the pinnacle of his ministerial career, but history will certainly remember him as a modernising Leader of the House of Commons, who carried through wide-ranging reforms to the way in which we go about our parliamentary business.
	Mo Mowlam was held in great affection both here in the House and throughout the country, above all because of her simple and straightforward honesty in dealing with the people whom she met, whether the President of the United States or the chef whom she went out of her way to thank during a visit organised by the Ministry of Defence.
	The business for Thursday 13 October will now be a motion to approve the Terrorism Act 2000 (Proscribed Organisations) (Amendment) Order 2005, followed by a debate on combating benefit fraud on a motion for the Adjournment of the House. I can also announce that the Opposition day debates on Wednesday 12 October will relate to the regionalisation of emergency services and to climate change.

Chris Grayling: I join the Leader of the House in paying tribute to both Mo Mowlam and Robin Cook. I remember arriving as a young, new Member five years ago when Robin Cook was one of the towering giants on the Government Benches. He was a distinguished holder of the office of Leader of the House. I think that even the present Leader of the House would admit that he would be a hard act for any future one to follow. He will be much missed in the House. Mo Mowlam, a distinguished figure for many years who made a major contribution to the Government, will also be missed by people on both sides of the House.
	I am grateful to the Leader of the House for the update on the business. Thursday's business relates to terrorism issues. It is only a statutory instrument and, given all the press reports in the last few weeks, we are clearly waiting for the full set of proposals from the Government, so can he give us any indication as to when we can expect those?

Geoff Hoon: Soon.

David Heath: I join in the tributes paid to Mo Mowlam and Robin Cook, both of whom not only made enormously distinguished contributions to the work of the House and to Government, but also established firm personal friendships with Members on both sides of the House and maintained great respect throughout their time in the House and beyond.
	Will the Leader of the House confirm that, on Thursday, we will debate a single order, dealing with, I think, 15 different organisations, that is incapable of amendment? Will he reflect on the fact that that does not allow for proper and separate consideration of the different organisations involved on their merits, which might be appropriate in this case? I thank him for the fact that the order and the explanatory memorandum are now available in the Vote Office and for the clear notes that are provided explaining the significance of each of the organisations mentioned.
	Given that the notes indicate that, as far as we are aware, many of the organisations have no actual membership within the United Kingdom, and therefore we are largely dealing with association or perhaps financial movements, will any subsequent orders be required under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002? Would it not be appropriate to bring those forward at an early stage, given that, if the Home Secretary feels that there is a proper threat, it is right that the House should consider them at the earliest opportunity?

Geoff Hoon: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for making it clear that the draft order is available in the Vote Office, which allows hon. Members to see the details for themselves. At this stage, I do not want to be drawn into a debate about the draft order's contents and I am sure that hon. Members will take full advantage of the normal arrangements for debating a statutory instrument, when they have the opportunity to do so.

Chris Mullin: My right hon. Friend will recall that a two-week September sitting to put an end to the nonsense of the 80-day summer recess was one of the wide-ranging reforms introduced by our late colleague, Robin Cook. Now that the nice new screen has been fitted, will he assure the House that the September sittings agreed by Robin Cook will continue in the next parliamentary year?

Geoff Hoon: My right hon. Friend has been assiduous in asking that question—it was the last question he asked before the recess, so it is entirely appropriate that it is the first thereafter. I am relieved to see the screen in place, because my reply to his earlier question made it clear that the length of this year's summer recess was due to its fitting. It is important that we discuss and debate the parliamentary timetable, which the Modernisation Committee will do on Wednesday.

John Bercow: In endorsing the Leader of the House's gracious tributes to departed colleagues, may I say that Robin Cook, whom I was privileged to know, was an outstanding parliamentarian whose presence enriched this House, which has been greatly impoverished by his passing? Given that anti-terrorism legislation is of the highest importance in establishing the balance between security and freedom, and that it is desirable to try to command as much consensus as possible between the parties, does the Leader of the House accept that it makes a great deal of sense to debate all stages of the Bill on the Floor of the House?

Geoff Hoon: That question does not strictly concern this week's business, but I shall answer it in the spirit in which it was asked. I am sure that the usual channels will consider the hon. Gentleman's point in due course.

John Redwood: May we have an opportunity for an urgent discussion this week on the recent European Court of Justice case that increases criminal law jurisdiction by the European Union against the wishes of the Government, whom I support on that issue?

Mr. Speaker: Order. The statement is very restricted, and the right hon. Gentleman is discussing the business of the House.

Nigel Evans: We will debate issues relating to terrorism on Thursday. The Leader of the House knows that incidents about which hon. Members may want to ask questions have occurred in this country during the 81 days that we have been off. Will he reflect on opportunities for hon. Members to table written questions during the recess?

Geoff Hoon: As I have said, the Modernisation Committee will consider a paper on the organisation of the parliamentary year and I take the hon. Gentleman's suggestion as a contribution to that discussion.

Andrew MacKay: Further to the question asked by the hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin), the Leader of the House will recall the final business statement in July, when, in response to my question, he agreed to a fresh debate and a fresh vote on whether to sit in September. I assume that that promise still stands.

Geoff Hoon: I certainly recall offering a debate, but I cannot recall offering a vote.

Iraq

John Reid: With permission, Mr. Speaker, I shall make a statement about our operations in Iraq.
	On returning to the House, may I first express my sincere condolences—and, I am sure, those of the whole House—to the families of those UK forces personnel who were most recently killed in Iraq: on 5 September, Fusilier Donal Anthony Mead and Fusilier Stephen Robert Manning, both from C company, 2nd Battalion the Royal Regiment of Fusiliers; and on 11 September, Major Matthew Bacon of the intelligence corps, who was serving as a staff officer with the headquarters of the Multi-National Division (South-East). We express our gratitude to those who gave their lives in the service of their country, and we express our condolences to their families and to their loved ones.
	Let us remind ourselves of our objective in Iraq. It is to work, along with the rest of the international community, and now the United Nations under United Nations Security Council resolution 1546, to assist the Iraqi people and their elected representatives: first, to establish their own democratic Government and institutions; secondly, to build their own security forces to safeguard that democracy; and thirdly, to develop their economy and civil society. We are helping the Iraqis to build all three of them; the terrorists want to impede and destroy all three of them. That is the battleground. I can put it no better than President Talibani did in The Times this morning:
	"The battle of Iraq cannot be won by retreat or compromise, but by the vision and determination for which Britain is renowned."
	And that means, as Prime Minister Jafaari said when I met him recently:
	"The presence of multinational forces in Iraq for us is based on need, security need for those forces to support our forces."
	The United Kingdom is in Iraq for as long as we are needed, and as long as we need to be there, and no longer than either.
	The political process, despite the worst intentions of the terrorists, continues to be on track. Following the elections in January of this year and the establishment of the constitutional commission, the Iraqis have now produced a draft constitution that will be the subject of an historic national referendum later this week. Few people thought that we would get to this point. Preparations are also under way for full, democratic, national elections in December. These are, in any context, enormous strides forward, and, in the context of the continual terrorist activity, hugely significant strides forward which have been made in spite of the terrorist attempts to derail Iraq's progress towards a peaceful and democratic future.
	Against this political backdrop, the coalition's top priority is working with the Iraqis to improve the security environment and to build the capability of the Iraqi security forces so that they themselves are increasingly able to take responsibility for delivering law and order. In this we are working not alone, but with 27 other nations under the United Nations Security Council resolution. Despite, again, all the efforts of the terrorists, I can report to the House that we are beginning to see real progress in building up the Iraqi security forces. There are now more than 190,000 Iraqi security force personnel who have been trained and are capable thus far, and the number of Iraqi units capable of conducting effective counter-insurgency operations is increasing steadily. That means that there are now, for the first time, more trained and capable Iraqi security forces than there are multinational forces in Iraq.
	But as everyone involved in this process recognises, there are no quick fixes, and building the Iraqi leadership, command and control, logistics and support structures will take more time. We have always said that our handover to the Iraqis themselves will be conditional upon their developing their own security capabilities, and that we will see the job through until those conditions have been met.
	The House may wish to be reminded of the criteria and the terms on which those conditions might be fulfilled, since there has been some demand outside this House for clarification on what is sometimes called the exit strategy. The conditions that will permit the transfer of security responsibility to the Iraqi security forces have been defined by the joint committee to transfer security responsibility, which, as the House may recall, was formed by the Iraqi Prime Minister over the summer.
	The basic principles for transfer of security to the Iraqi authorities are based on four broad categories: an assessment of the insurgents' threat level; Iraqi security forces' ability to take on the security task themselves; the capacity of provincial bodies to cope with the changed security environment; and the posture and support available from coalition forces. Those are the criteria; we expect the committee's criteria to be confirmed soon. Thereafter, assessments will be made by the Iraqis to determine which areas of Iraq are ready to transfer to Iraqi control.
	I emphasise that we therefore stand by the strategy that we have maintained up to now, which sets out the conditions under which we will hand security to the Iraqis themselves and begin to draw down our forces. I want to emphasise again that we will stay in Iraq until the job is done and that we will not make significant changes to the United Kingdom's force posture in Iraq until we, the coalition partners and, in particular, the Iraqis themselves, are confident that the conditions are right. That was, is and remains our position and any speculation to the contrary is simply wrong. Indeed, I would go further and say that the biggest obstacle now to our leaving Iraq in view of the build-up of the Iraqi forces' capability is the actions of the terrorists themselves. Terrorist activity only delays our leaving Iraq; it does not hasten it.
	Turning specifically to the security situation in Multi-National Division (South-East), hon. Members will have seen the graphic television pictures of events in Basra on 19 September. Two soldiers in MND(SE) were arrested by the Iraqi police service and held at an Iraqi police station in Basra. We agreed with the Governor of Basra and the chief of police to collect the personnel from the police station but, as we prepared to do so, it became clear that the two soldiers had been handed to local militia. The decision to mount an operation to enter the police station was then taken—a decision that I fully supported at the time and still fully support.
	I am pleased to be able to tell the House that, while one of the soldiers injured on that day is still receiving medical treatment, the others have returned to their units. They all have my thanks and admiration for a job well done, and I believe that they have the thanks of the whole House.
	The fact that we were able to mount an extremely complex operation in defence of our own soldiers, which led to the successful rescue of two soldiers held hostage by militiamen without firing a single shot, is a credit to our forces. I can also confirm that the Iraqis have now withdrawn the warrants that they issued later that week for the arrest of the two British soldiers concerned.
	I would not wish to downplay the challenges that remain before us. For instance, the arrest of 12 suspects last week on Friday demonstrates our determination to deal robustly with those implicated in improvised explosive device attacks—bomb attacks to the layman—against our UK forces. I can confirm that weapons and other equipment were found in those raids.
	Nevertheless, serious as they were, we need to keep those events in perspective. The rest of MND(SE) was unaffected, Basra has remained largely calm since the incident and we have been working hard to restore relations with Basra council so that we can work together for the good of the people in Basra.
	On troop roulement and troop presence in Iraq, I very much regret the speculative and often wildly misleading press reports that have appeared since we last met here. I have not discussed any troop roulements in detail until the House returned because I believe that the House should be the first to know our intentions. Unfortunately, holding for that length of time sometimes prompts wild speculation outside.
	Let me therefore turn to the details of the next routine troop rotation of UK forces in MND(SE), which begins this month. The lead UK formation in Iraq, currently 12 Mechanised Brigade, will be replaced by 7 Armoured Brigade, which will take over command of UK forces in early November. In addition to 7 Armoured Brigade's Headquarters and Signals Squadron, the following major units will be deployed to replace those currently in Iraq: 2nd Battalion the Parachute Regiment; 1st Battalion the Highlanders; 1st Battalion the Royal Regiment of Fusiliers; 9th/12th Royal Lancers; 1st Battalion the King's Own Royal Border Regiment; the Scots Dragoon Guards; 3rd Regiment Royal Horse Artillery; 32nd Engineer Regiment; and 2 Logistics Support Regiment.
	The Territorial Army units involved in this roulement are a single company from the 4th Battalion the Parachute Regiment and a composite company from the West Midlands Regiment and the Royal Welsh Regiment. During what will be a very busy period of troop movements, I have also decided to deploy one company from the Cyprus-based theatre reserve force to relieve the rotating troops of some routine security tasks, such as static security or guard duty. A company of 1st Battalion the Royal Highland Fusiliers will deploy for a few weeks while that rotation lasts.
	The total numbers of troops in Iraq following the deployment of 7 Armoured Brigade will be around 8,000. That is about 500 fewer than at present, reflecting the closure of two small bases in Basra, the transfer of some training tasks to the Iraqi security forces and structural differences between the two brigades. These are relatively minor adjustments, however, and will not affect the activities being carried out by United Kingdom forces.
	We will continue to build Iraqi security capability and to keep the security situation under review during the referendum and through the elections later this year. The Iraqi security forces themselves will lead on security in the referendum, with our support. In MND(SE), we have been assisting the Iraqi army's 10th Division to ensure that it is prepared for this task. Earlier this year, I visited the 10th Division in Iraq.
	This summer has seen much positive progress in Iraq, despite the worst intentions of the terrorists. The production of an Iraqi constitution, written by democratically elected Iraqi politicians on behalf of their own people, is a huge step forward. We have no intention of undermining this historic achievement by abandoning Iraq before it is ready to stand on its own two feet, or before its democratically elected politicians feel that to be the case. Of course, we will encounter more obstacles. There will be more major hurdles to overcome, particularly in the run-up to the elections in December, when a minority of the Iraqis and some from outside—the terrorists—will almost certainly seek to disrupt Iraq's progress towards security, democracy and self-determination.
	The recent discovery and recovery of more than 160 more bodies from a mass grave in the al-Muthanna province in MND(SE) is a sober reminder of the horrors that the Iraqi people have had to face in the past, and of the reasons why we must continue our efforts to support them in building a better future, embracing democracy and free from tyranny. So, while we do not want to be in Iraq any longer than is absolutely necessary, we will not be deflected from our task. We have made a commitment to the Iraqi people; it is important that we honour that commitment and see our task through, and that is what we will do.

Michael Ancram: I thank the Secretary of State for his statement and for giving me advance sight of it. On behalf of my colleagues, I join him in sending condolences to the families of those who have so bravely but tragically lost their lives. I also join him in paying tribute to our armed forces serving in Iraq. In the face of severe dangers, their courage, commitment, professionalism and loyalty are a matter of great pride and an example to us all.
	For all the Secretary of State's brave words, however, the situation in Iraq today is grim. There are now about 500 insurgent attacks each week, fuelled by growing outside interference, not least in MND(SE). The price is indeed being paid for the crass decision to disband the Iraqi security forces after the war—a decision that gave the insurgents their opening.
	Today, the Secretary of State has again reiterated that we should stay in Iraq, in his words, until our job is done. I agree, but the critical question is how he defines the job and who makes that crucial assessment. According to the Secretary of State it is the Iraqi Government. Of course, they have an absolute right to ask us to go if they wish us to do so, but surely their right to ask us to stay cannot be open-ended. Ultimately, is not it for us and no one else to decide on the deployment of our armed forces and when they should begin to draw down?
	I have noted what the Secretary of State said about troop rotations. I listened with surprise at the pride with which he mentioned the names of some of those regiments—ironic in light of the fact that at the same time he is trying to abolish so many of those same regiments. The 1st Battalion the Royal Highland Fusiliers is to be deployed for the third time. I might ask him has its rifle company, which was stranded in Jordan for lack of air transport, been recovered? He has confirmed that a date has been set for the withdrawal of 12 Mechanised Brigade, but for how long will there be an overlap between the reserve battalion coming in and the brigade before that withdrawal takes place?
	The House also noted what the Secretary of State had to say about the developing capability of the Iraqi security forces. I must press him a little on that. He tells us that 190,000 personnel have been trained so far and that the number of capable units is increasing steadily. However, is not it the case that, as the top United States commander in Iraq, General Casey, told the Senate last week, only one Iraqi army battalion seems fully capable of fighting independently and is not that two fewer than was the case only two months ago?
	In MND(SE), with the apparent serious level of infiltration of the security forces by Iranian-backed insurgents, something on which the right hon. Gentleman has had little to say so far today—I hope he will say more—how confident is he that those forces will be able to take over in the short to medium term? Indeed, what estimate has he made of such infiltration? Does he now accept, for instance, that many of the latest roadside bombs are of Iranian design and manufacture? I understand that, as a result of the increased attrition from roadside bombing, our forces in MND(SE) are relying heavily on the use of helicopters. Are there enough helicopters to meet those new requirements and how many of them are having to be commercially contracted?
	Finally, will the Secretary of State take this opportunity to say whether there is any truth in the rumour that coalition representatives are seeking to open channels of communication with at least some of the insurgents?
	The whole House and the nation are proud of our armed forces. I, too, pay tribute to Brigadier John Lorimer, commander of 12 Mechanised Brigade and his troops for their remarkable action in rescuing the two captured soldiers two weeks ago. Our forces throughout have carried out their tasks with all the fortitude and courage we would expect from our British Army, and our thoughts are with them all in the task that lies ahead.

John Reid: I thank the right hon. and learned Gentleman for his words of support and his plaudits for our forces. They are well deserved and his views are reflected on both sides of the House.   The right hon. and learned Gentleman asked how the job being done would be measured and by whom. I hope that in the four criteria that I outlined in my statement I have set out the how part of that—in other words, the criteria by which we shall judge the job being done. The capacity of the Iraqi security forces to take the lead themselves will be judged first, on their numbers and capability; secondly, the level of capacity of the provincial government to deal with the new security situation; thirdly, the level of support that it is necessary for us to give them; and, fourthly, the level of the terrorist threat.
	As to the when, will that be an event? No, it will be a process. Will that process achieve the necessary conditions in every part of the country at the same time? No, so geographically, and in time lines, it will be a continuing process. Who will decide that? Obviously, at the end of the day every sovereign nation, including ourselves, has the right, if it so wishes, to make any decision that it wishes. The right hon. and learned Gentleman, or any other hon. Member, would not want us to take a decision that dishonoured a pledge that we made to the Iraqi people and to their democratically elected representatives. Of course, the decision will be made in consultation with the Iraqis. At the end of the day, the truth is that we do not want to be there any longer than necessary. Quite frankly, the Iraqi politicians, who are democratically elected and accountable to their people, do not want us there any longer than we are needed and necessary either. That is precisely what Prime Minister Jafaari and I said at the press conference some two weeks ago. However, if we read what he and President Talibani said this morning, it is obvious that the minority of terrorists who are attempting to claim that we are not there with the support of Iraqi people are being absolutely misleading. We are there, with the support of the Iraqi people, for as long as it is necessary to secure their own developing democracy.
	The right hon. and learned Gentleman asks about air transport, and he has written to me on that point. I can tell him that we have done everything that we can to overcome those difficulties, and they have been overcome. Without going into details, the problem is very often not the aircraft, but having suitable aircraft with defensive suites. The safety of our troops travelling in and out of Iraq is paramount, and we have now managed to overcome the difficulties. The right hon. and learned Gentleman asked about the transitional period during which it is envisaged that the company from the reserve theatre in Cyprus might be deployed in Iraq. That is of the order of six weeks in operational terms.
	The right hon. and learned Gentleman asked about the police in Basra and infiltration. In any theatre of combat in the world where competing factions have been at war with each other there is always a problem of split loyalties when rehabilitating and restructuring the police force afterwards. The question is not whether those split loyalties exist, but whether we can diminish them by human rights training and training the police to be as objective as possible. Wherever we look in the world, we find that policing is very often the last nut to be cracked. Incidentally, that applies in our own country, as well as in Bosnia or anywhere else. However, although there are certain elements in the police service in Iraq about whom we ought to be worried, I would not want him to believe that that is the majority or anything like it. Let us remember that every time Iraqi policemen put on their uniforms in the morning, they go out to face the threat of death. Many of them have died leading operations. Even in Basra, there were police around the Jameat police station trying to ensure that the 250 to 300 militant demonstrators did not approach it. So it is not the case that all the police, even in Basra, were antagonistic towards us.
	We keep the issue of helicopters under review.
	On the question of whether we reach out to Sunni politicians, I have to say that we reach out to everyone in Iraq. We will combat the terrorists, force with force, for as long as they deploy it. However, for any Sunni politician who wants to get involved in the process, we encourage the Shi'a to reach out their hands and arms to the Sunnis to be inclusive, and we encourage the Sunni politicians to engage in politics, not terrorism. That is the position that we take, and I think that it is the right one.

Michael Moore: The whole House will be grateful to the Secretary of State for making his comprehensive statement this afternoon, immediately on our return. I join him and the shadow Secretary of State in offering condolences to the families and loved ones of those in the British armed forces who have given their lives on active service.
	I also pay tribute to the continued bravery, dedication and professionalism of those in the armed forces who serve in Iraq, highlighted graphically by the appalling attacks on British forces in Basra and the events that followed. Does not that terrible episode, among many others, illustrate that the situation in Iraq is getting worse, rather than better? Should there not now be serious concerns about the relationship with the Iraqi security forces in Basra, given their apparent infiltration by the militias? Specifically, what resources are being channelled into improving intelligence gathering and force protection for our armed forces?
	The Secretary of State highlighted the setting up the joint committee to transfer security responsibility, which is an important development. What steps are now required to confirm the principles and criteria set out in his statement? Have the events in Basra altered the time scale for the transfer of security responsibility to Iraqi forces in MND(SE) and what is his assessment of when that may now occur? Although we may all agree that we must not cut and run, just how long a haul does he now believe will be necessary before our troops will have finished their job?

John Reid: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his remarks about my making the statement immediately on the House's return. I wanted to do that because, on matters of life and death, I think that the House is entitled to an early statement. That is why I came to the House today.
	I also held back the announcement of the troop roulement, so that the House could be the first to know. That has its disadvantages and I ask the House to bear with me. When I refused to answer questions on the issue over a period of several months, we got the speculation that we see in the press. One weekend, they say that everyone is immediately coming out of Iraq; the next, they say that there will be no withdrawal. I hope that hon. Members understand that none of this is our doing. I thank the hon. Gentleman for his words on that.
	The hon. Gentleman says that the situation in Iraq is getting worse, but that is not a true picture. The situation is getting better in terms of the development of democratic agreement and institutions. The Iraqis have achieved in 14 months what it has taken this country several centuries to do, namely, to reach a general agreement on the disposition of devolved powers versus central powers and the coming together of the ethnic groups. That has taken something like several hundred years in this country, so let us give them credit for that. Previous combatants have come together to forget all their previous difficulties and to try to reach a conclusion.
	The Iraqis have also made great progress—it is not getting worse—in their own security, which is the second objective. Despite everything that the terrorists are doing, the Iraqi security forces are becoming better trained, are more capable and are getting better and greater numbers than ever before.
	The Iraqis are making some social and economic advances. They are not as fast as I would like—I fully admit that—because of terrorist activity, but there is a little more electricity than there was, a little more opportunity than there was and something like 240 hospitals are now operating that previously were not. Hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of kids are being vaccinated and a large number of schools are being rehabilitated, so there is some advance.
	Against that, as the position gets better, the terrorists will get worse. They are involving themselves more and more viciously and frenetically. They are murdering children, and ordinary working Muslim men and women in Iraq are being massacred in their hundreds—cumulatively, in their thousands—in an attempt to destroy all these things.
	I think that we should paint a balanced picture, giving credit to the democrats and the vast majority in Iraq rather than concentrating on the evil successes of those who are trying to destroy things. Part of that involves making sure that we put enough resources into the intelligence-led operations that the hon. Gentleman mentioned. I can tell him that the 12 arrests that took place on Friday were based on intelligence leads and that it was the British acting on their own who carried them out.
	In terms of time scale, I say this: to give an immutable time scale to say that we will leave tomorrow or next month on a specific date is to send a postcard to the terrorists saying, "Hang on in until this date." We will not do what the Liberal party has asked us to do—either what has been asked by its leader, which is to cut and run immediately, or what has been asked by the hon. Gentleman and his colleague, which is a different thing. I have noticed the not so subtle difference between their and their leader's statements.
	In fact, the hon. Gentleman's colleague has asked us to do what precisely what we are doing, which is to set out the terms on which there would be a handover. In all honesty, I have tried to do that today, and that is what we have done all along and will stick to. When the Iraqis have the capability and desire for us to go, we will go, but what we will not do is cut and run from the terrorists because things are getting tough or give the terrorists a date by which we will go, as that would be an invitation to them to hang on in until that date.

Chris Bryant: I was glad that the Secretary of State paid tribute to many people in the Iraqi police force, not only because we must build the police force as a strong body that is independent and free from corruption and infiltration if we are to achieve a decent civil society, but because the courage and dedication that many officers show just to go to work every day is quite extraordinary. I hope that all hon. Members agree with that. The right hon. Gentleman will know that the relationship between British troops and the local police force in any country in which they operate is often one of the most complicated and difficult—that is certainly true in Bosnia and Herzegovina and also in Kosovo. What measures is he putting in place to ensure that that relationship improves, that we have dealt with infiltration into the Iraqi police force, and that the special role that the British armed forces have often played in many parts of the world to build civil society is brought to the fore?

John Reid: I thank my hon. Friend for his comments about the police because we must be balanced and remember that it takes a lot of courage to put on a police uniform in Basra, Baghdad or anywhere in Iraq, yet thousands of people are doing just that. We are trying to give what help we can not only to train people in the police service, but to promote quality—human rights, objectivity and neutrality. I do not pretend that there is a magic wand that we can wave. However, we have about 100 specialist police officers there at present. We have trained some 14,000 Iraqi police and we hope that the number will be 25,000 by the end of next year.
	I do not underestimate for a moment the amount of time or the difficulties with training that are in front of us. However, to answer my hon. Friend's implied question—and the specific question asked by the hon. Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk (Mr. Moore)—I do not envisage a change to the projected time scale in which we might think that conditions would come to fruition to enable us to hand over. I see no reason to change the view that I held earlier in the year that we could start such a process during the course of next year.

James Arbuthnot: We expect a lot of our troops and they never let us down, and now is not the time to call for British troops to be withdrawn from Iraq. However, how difficult is it for the Secretary of State to recruit and retain those troops at the moment? Will he give us current figures for recruitment and retention, not only in the Regular Army, but the Territorials? Is he worried, as I am, about overstretch in Iraq?

John Reid: I thank the right hon. Gentleman, who now has an important position in holding the Government to account as Chairman of the Defence Committee, for his comments about the British forces. He is right that when they are asked to do something, they do it. They do not take part in controversy, debates or decisions—they just go and do it.
	The right hon. Gentleman asked whether it is difficult to recruit. Yes, it is, and it has been for some time. We can speculate about the reasons for that and do what we can to try to discover and address those reasons, but one reason is certainly high employment and low unemployment, which has been the case for a while. The controversy surrounding training, Deepcut, bullying, Iraq and other issues probably does not help to convince the gatekeepers—the mums and dads—of the attraction of the armed forces. A range of issues might make it more difficult to recruit to a professional Army.
	I have recently returned from Afghanistan, India and Pakistan. My hon. Friend the Minister with responsibility for the middle east has visited Basra and elsewhere in Iraq. My right hon. Friend the Minister of State and I spend a lot of time with troops, so I can tell the right hon. Member for North-East Hampshire (Mr. Arbuthnot) that morale is high. Troops are given a great welcome by many Iraqis and by people in Afghanistan who recognise the important job that they are doing, contrary to some of the impressions given by the media here. His first comments welcoming the role that the troops are playing are an antidote to some of the reasons why we might be finding recruitment difficult.

Mike Gapes: In January, 8.5 million Iraqis bravely voted. That is about 60 per cent. of the people—a similar number to those who vote in our elections—and they had to defy terrorist bombs and threats of beheading. Part of the success of that election was due to the security ring around polling stations, in which the coalition forces played an important role. What measures are planned to assist with the security of the vote on 15 October and for the hoped-for parliamentary elections planned for December?

John Reid: A great deal of thought has been given to that. Just as the terrorists have increased their activities in an attempt to disrupt and destroy those two steps in the democratic process—the referendum and then the elections—so, too, have we and, in particular, our allies and the Iraqi security forces made plans to try to ensure that Iraqis vote in peace. It is a symbol of the choice that is before us. However any hon. Member regarded the initial intervention in Iraq, the choice today is different. It is simply between the terrorists on the one side, who want to destroy democracy, and the United Nations, the multinational community and the Iraqi democrats on the other—[Interruption.] I am being shouted at. I do not know what is being said, but I commend the remarks made this morning by President Talibani, who said:
	"Similarly, those who attack mosques and churches, who murder schoolchildren and labourers, who behead foreigners and who kidnap humanitarian workers are not engaged in 'resistance'. Those sabotaging Iraq's first democracy bear no resemblance to the resistors of foreign occupation in wartime Europe. Rather, they are, in their ideology and record, contemporary representatives of the fascism that wreaked such havoc 60 years ago in Europe. They are supremacists and racists, as worthy of our contempt as those who practised apartheid in South Africa."
	I will stand by the words of the elected President of Iraq rather than by the terrorists who attempt to undermine democracy.

Crispin Blunt: Last week in a press conference with President Talibani, the Prime Minister seemed to accuse the Iranian Government of involvement with the insurgency in the Basra area. The Secretary of State has not mentioned anything about that. Can he tell us about the reports of the use of shape-charged weapons against British forces which appear of a quality and a calibre that can be produced only under the auspices of a Government? Will he give a further analysis of the situation in Basra? Will it be considered for an early turnover of responsibility to the local Iraqi forces, because the situation there is different from that in the rest of the country?

John Reid: On the second point, despite the difficulties that arose recently in Basra, in general terms the MND(SE) has had a better record of presiding over tranquillity and has experienced a lower number of incidents than many other parts of the country. We would want to study carefully whether the area might merit a handover earlier in the process rather than later.
	I think that the hon. Gentleman was specifically asking whether the improvised explosive devices—the bombs—that have been used against our troops originate in Iran or have an Iranian connection. We cannot be sure of that at the moment but, as the Prime Minister confirmed last week, it is clear that new explosive devices have been used—incidentally, not just against British troops, but elsewhere in Iraq—and that the particular nature of those devices lead us to believe that they can be traced to either Hezbollah or elements associated with Hezbollah and Iran.
	The new bomb technology is similar to devices used by Hezbollah, which, as hon. Members know, is supported and funded by Iran. We have welcomed Iran's public line of supporting the Iraqi elections and the efforts to support and build a constructive relationship with the new Iraqi Administration. We cannot tolerate a parallel policy of violence on anyone's part. Elements within or connected to the Iranian system—I put it no more strongly than that—seem to be encouraging violent opposition to multinational forces. That is a risky way for anyone to behave, so we hope that it does not continue.

Andrew Miller: We must not forget the important role being carried out in the area by the Royal Navy. I pay tribute to the ship's company of HMS Campbeltown, who I visited on station recently. They are protecting important oil installations. One observation that I made during the visit was that if we are to help develop the economy of Iraq, it is important that we re-establish some of the other routes that existed for exporting oil from that country. Is my right hon. Friend satisfied that sufficient engineering skill is being put in place by the oil industry in this difficult time to ensure that that happens?

John Reid: My hon. Friend is always a great defender of the senior service, and on this occasion he is absolutely right: maritime security is very important in the situation in which we find ourselves. I know that there are difficulties in acquiring sufficient skills and personnel in zones that are regarded as hazardous or threatening and in war zones. Part of our challenge is to make sure that despite all the terrorists' efforts the social and economic framework is sufficiently secure to attract engineers and others with the skills that my hon. Friend mentions.
	There is no doubt that what the vast majority of Iraqis want is self-determination for themselves, stability and security for their lives, and a better life. In that they are no different from any family in this country, and they are just as entitled to freedom and prosperity as families in this country.

Desmond Swayne: Does the Secretary of State share the analysis that it was precisely because of the success of last January's elections that the insurgents decided to make Iraq the meeting engagement of our war against terrorism? If he does share that assessment, does he agree that we have to lick them there?

John Reid: Yes, on both counts. There is no doubt in my mind that what is going on Iraq is not just a local tactical battle, important though it is to win that battle for the Iraqi people. It is probably, at the moment, the most important battlefield of a strategic nature between those who wish to impose a religious dictatorship not only on large sections of the middle east but further afield and those who believe that Arab peoples and Muslims are as entitled to democratic self-determination as anyone else. If the Iraqi people build, in an Arab Muslim state in the middle east, their own form of democracy and safeguard it, it will be a major strategic blow to the terrorists. If, on the other hand, the terrorists succeed in stopping that happening, it will be a major success for the terrorists. The terrorists understand the strategic nature of this battle. The hon. Gentleman understands the strategic nature of this battle. I just wish that every leading commentator and politician in western Europe understood the strategic nature of this battle.

Andrew MacKinlay: Will the Secretary of State reaffirm that we will not be handing over responsibility unless or until we are satisfied that the Iraqi armed forces pass the litmus test for a democratic Government of being under the democratic control of a civilian Minister? We have a long way to go yet.
	In that regard, will the Secretary of State use his good offices to reaffirm the United Kingdom's concern to ensure that the people at Camp Ashraf, Iranian refugees, continue to enjoy protected person status and do not become the Cossacks of this period? The great fear is that they will be treated in the same way as the Cossacks were treated in 1945. The people of Camp Ashraf must have the protection of both the United Kingdom and—I hope my right hon. Friend will emphasise to his friends when he meets them—the Iraqi Government. Discuss.

John Reid: I thank my hon. Friend who, as usual, has set me an exam question in some detail. Thankfully on the Front Bench, one is allowed to cheat a bit by discussing things with one's fellow Ministers. Yes, I can give my hon. Friend that specific assurance. I can also refer to his general question about the democratic control of the security forces. That is very important. I discuss the matter from time to time with Mr. Al-Dulaimi, the Iraqi Defence Minister. We do what we can to ensure that we are training Iraqi security forces—the army—not only in martial arts but in human rights and the treatment of prisoners. We will continue to do that, and they are developing apace in that direction.
	These things are not easy after decades under Saddam in which, let us remember, members of some of the parties that are agreeing and bringing in the Sunni had their women, children and innocent civilians gassed and burned from the inside out by mustard gas. The Shi'a have been killed, starved, had their water removed and been massacred in their thousands—in some ways in their hundreds of thousands—so to see people come together in the armed forces and apply a level of objectivity under democratic control is a major step forward.

Elfyn Llwyd: I agree with the Secretary of State that any troop withdrawal will have to be events-led; it is plain that that is the case.
	Having been out to Iraq in March, I fully commend what the Secretary of State says about the professionalism and dedication of the servicemen and women, but might I ask him one thing? We are led to believe that the Attorney-General is at this moment on his way to Iraq to look at the judicial authorities and the way in which things are working or not working. My plea is on behalf of my late constituent, Lance Corporal Tom Keys, who was one of six military policemen murdered at al-Majaar al-Kabir. I ask the Government to ensure that the perpetrators of that awful crime are brought to book fairly swiftly.

John Reid: In extending once again my condolences to the family of the hon. Gentleman's constituent, may I say that that has always been our earnest wish? I must make it plain to the House that matters of investigation and prosecution, whether of those attacking our troops or concerning allegations against our troops, are conducted separately to and independently of not only the chain of command, but the chain of command of Ministers here. So, we can take neither credit nor blame.
	That is not a way of stepping back from responsibility—I expressed my earnest wish—but a way of being clear to the House that when and if charges are brought against our soldiers or against others for attacks on our soldiers, the process is conducted by an independent Army prosecution authority which, although part of the MOD, is accountable to the Attorney-General. Therefore, I cannot answer any specific points for the Attorney-General, but I wholeheartedly and earnestly support the hon. Gentleman's wish that there be a speedy bringing to book of those who murdered military policemen.

Neil Gerrard: In his statement, while telling us about progress that had been made, the Secretary of State clearly acknowledged that his ultimate aims of democracy and security in Iraq were still to be reached, and he talked about the battle of Iraq and the number of Iraqi civilians who are still dying. In the light of that, will he suggest to his colleagues in the Home Office that it would be premature for them to start the enforced return of failed asylum seekers to Iraq?

John Reid: I am sure that the Home Secretary heard my hon. Friend's comment.

Mark Pritchard: The Secretary of State mentioned obstacles to the exit strategy. Does he agree that if Iran's alleged activities continue, that will create a new obstacle to the exit strategy, regardless of whether the current obstacles have been removed when that judgment is made?

John Reid: I think I made the precise point that terrorist activity and, by implication, those assisting such activity do nothing to hasten the withdrawal of multinational forces from Iraq—indeed, they delay withdrawal, because one of the four criteria by which we judge the conditions in which we would hand over power and the lead in security to the Iraqis is the level of the threat from terrorists. Therefore, by definition, anything that increases the level of that threat diminishes the propensity to withdraw.

Michael Jabez Foster: Once again, my right hon. Friend has set out a balanced statement of the successes and the challenges that remain. Yesterday, Lord Boyce, a former defence chief, said how demoralising it is for our troops to hear only the bad news in the media. Is there anything my right hon. Friend can do to highlight more of the successes, so that the "Today" programme could at least take them on board?

John Reid: Far be it from me to launch an undeserved and prejudiced attack on the "Today" programme, whose staff I have always found to be objective observers of events in Iraq. We should note the comments made yesterday by the former Chief of the Defence Staff, Lord Boyce, who in my last interview was used as an example to me of how everything was completely black in terms of overstretch and so on. I think that he put the record straight.
	The truth is that people in this country are mature enough to know that we are in the course of a very deep and desperate struggle against terrorism internationally and that Iraq is one of the theatres in which that struggle is at its bloodiest. That is precisely because of the point made by the hon. Member for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne): it is not a local but a big strategic issue. I believe, the Government believe, and I hope that the House believes that those who happen to be Arabs or Muslims have no less right than people in this country to democratic self-determination of their future. As they grasp that right to self-determination, to build democratic institutions in their own shape, as well as the security forces to protect them, and to achieve greater prosperity for their people, we should stand beside them. There will be difficulties, perhaps even greater than those we face now if the terrorists have their way, but we will see our way through those difficulties and stand by the Iraqi people. I have no doubt that, ultimately, the Iraqi people will grasp self-determination and defeat the terrorists.

William McCrea: Will the Secretary of State accept from me the Democratic Unionist party's expression of support and admiration for the United Kingdom forces in Iraq? They have shown tremendous dignity, dedication and fortitude in the midst of great danger and they have set a great example to us all. I join in expressing extreme and humble gratitude to those members of our security forces who have made the supreme sacrifice in Iraq since last we met in this House. I also offer my condolences to their families, who must be heartbroken at this time.
	Does the Secretary of State agree with me that those who stand in public life in Iraq deserve our support? They face tremendous danger, as do those who join the security forces in Iraq every time they put on their uniform and go out. The House must realise that terrorism is a reality: the people of Northern Ireland have experienced it for 30 years. It is great to be an armchair critic when one is far away from world events, but does the right hon. Gentleman agree that, now more than ever, we must ensure that our security forces receive the wholehearted support of this House and the people of the United Kingdom in our efforts to build a democratic Iraq? Finally, may I say—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We have heard sufficient for the Secretary of State to digest.

John Reid: I agree with the hon. Gentleman. I hope that I am not misreading the House, but I thought that every statement that has been made today has been made with an awareness of the resonance that these statements can carry outside the House. I think that there has been a mature and sensitive contribution from every Member who has spoken today, including even those who may have had difficulties with, or deep opposition to, the original intervention in Iraq. I think that there is a coming together of the House that says that we should see this through but at the same time ensure that we are not there any longer than is necessary. That is exactly where I and the Government are.

Tobias Ellwood: I fully concur with the comments that the Secretary of State made about the military. I wish that the whole of the House was fully in agreement in that respect. Perhaps that day will come.
	I question the Secretary of State on the political commitment that we have. The blueprint at present is for a constitution to try to unite one entire country out of three quite separate groupings. My concern is that in the north we have the Kurds, with the Shi'ites and the Sunnis being separate entities. The Kurds are already operating on their own, and they have their own Prime Minister. Violence is increasing and my worry is that we will end up with Iraq moving towards civil war or, alternatively, British forces and others will be in Iraq for an awfully long time unless more autonomy is given, not only geographically but politically, to the three distinct grouping to which I have referred.

John Reid: Despite all the predictions, the self-discipline shown by the majority of the groups has been huge. It is not an easy thing for people to come together to define a new constitution when, as has been said, there are long memories of difficulties, death, dangers and opposition to one another. It has been put to me that there is always the chance that the Iraqi people will vote down the constitution. I am asked, given that situation, "What do they do?" What they do is what any democracy does; they go back and discuss the matter again. I hope that it will not take as long as it took us, having voted down Scottish devolution, to get round to bringing it in again. If my memory serves me correctly, that took 21 years.
	Let us remember that despite all the difficulties the Iraqis have got where they are, with 155 out of 157 articles of the constitution having been agreed almost unanimously and with debate on two of them. That is a major step forward. I have every confidence in the Iraqi people being able to debate these matters and to take the decision on their own democratically. That is what we are trying to help them build.

Andrew Turner: I agree with the Secretary of State that terrorist activity should not hasten our departure from Iraq. I agree also on the need to support our troops, who have been plunged into a Herculean task. Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether he thinks it satisfactory that militias are lined up as the private armies of members of the Government of Iraq? Does he think that it was merely an aberration that on 19 September our soldiers were handed over to private militias? Does he believe that the governor of Basra, Mohammed al-Waili, is helping to maintain morale at home when he says that British troops are responsible for destabilising security in the province?

John Reid: It will not surprise the hon. Gentleman to know that I think that the governor was wrong when he asked me whether the capture or the handover of two British soldiers to what appears to us to be militiamen was an aberration. By definition, as it is the first time that it has happened, it was an aberration. That does not make me complacent in the least.
	If the hon. Gentleman is asking me—I think he is—whether there are elements within the Iraqi police force who may have joined with a view to usurping the authority and arms of the police service to the benefit of one particular grouping in the community, I think that there are. They are not the majority. They are not the majority even in Basra. It is necessary for the leadership of the Iraqis to show strong leadership as well as it is necessary for us to take action to defend our troops, which is why we arrested 12 further people on Friday of last week. We will continue to do what is necessary, within the legal framework in which we operate, to defend our troops and to train the Iraqi police service in human rights and objectivity as well as in the martial skills.

Bob Russell: The Secretary of State announced this afternoon that the 2nd Battalion the Parachute Regiment based in Colchester garrison is to be deployed yet again to Iraq—no happy family Christmas for its members to look forward to. Without putting a time limit on that deployment, can the right hon. Gentleman give an indication of how long the 2nd Battalion will be in Iraq this time before it is replaced by other British troops? Can he also tell us what percentage of the British Army has served in Iraq over the period that we have been there?

John Reid: On one of the points that the hon. Gentleman raised, six months' deployment, like everyone else. On the 2nd Battalion the Parachute Regiment—great people. I had the privilege of spending some time with them as a younger MP under the armed forces parliamentary scheme, so I suppose that in some terrible way, they are responsible for my being at the Dispatch Box. I cannot think of better people to send into dangerous situations. The hon. Gentleman's third question was about the percentage of British troops who have been in Iraq. The number of British troops who have been there is about 90,000. We are now on the seventh roulement. With all taken into account, a large number of people have gone through it. When we see the headlines about this or that case of alleged brutality or alleged misdemeanour, let us remember that against some 90,000 troops who have served in Iraq there have been about 160 allegations, of which substance has been found to about 15 or 20. That puts the matter into perspective. Given the number of troops, it is right and to be expected that we would come back to the Parachute Regiment again, but of course many others are being deployed as well. We should remember that as Secretary of State, I am completely unbiased, and they are all just as good as the Parachute Regiment.

Charles Walker: The Secretary of State is right that many thousands of people have been killed in Iraq. One of the common threads in many of those attacks is organisations advertising for workers. A thousand Iraqis turn up, one turns up with a bomb, and hundreds are dead and hundreds are maimed. What measures are we taking as a Government and a coalition to reduce the number of targets for those terrorists to attack?

John Reid: We are doing everything we possibly can on our own. We are doing everything we can to expand the number of trained Iraqi security forces in the army, the Ministry of the Interior and the police, but ultimately, as we found out in London, New York, Madrid, Tanzania, Kenya, Egypt, Turkey, Bali and everywhere else the terrorists get through, it is not always possible to stop them, particularly when they regard the country as a major strategic battlefield and they are throwing in terrorists from outside to combine with elements of the Fascist regime that ran the country for so long. As the position gets better in terms of democracy, security forces and economic development, we can expect the terrorists to get more frenetic and more frantic. That is why I said today that I cannot promise that that will not happen, but we will see it through.

South Asia Earthquake

Hilary Benn: With permission, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I would like to make a statement about the earthquake in south Asia.
	On Saturday 8 October, just before nine o'clock in the morning Pakistan time, an earthquake struck measuring 7.6 on the Richter scale. Its epicentre was in the area of Muzaffarabad in Pakistan-administered Kashmir, about 95 kilometres north-east of Islamabad. It caused widespread damage and a significant number of deaths and injuries.
	I would like to tell the House about the action taken by the Government and others in support of those affected by this disaster, but first, I am sure that all Members will wish to express their profound sadness at the loss of life. Our thoughts are with all those families, both in the countries affected and here, who have lost loved ones in this terrible tragedy.
	This was a major earthquake with tremors felt as far afield as Afghanistan and India, followed by a series of frightening aftershocks. The latest official figures indicate that 20,000 people have lost their lives and 44,000 have been injured. However, given the scale of the destruction and the fact that some areas have not yet been reached, the number of deaths is expected to rise further. There have also been a small number of deaths reported in Afghanistan, and 750 people now confirmed dead in north India, although unconfirmed reports indicate a significantly higher loss of life there, with 80 per cent. of houses in Uri and the surrounding district severely damaged. India has not sought international assistance. The greatest loss of life, however, has been caused by the devastation in Pakistan-administered Kashmir and the North West Frontier Province. Conditions there are difficult for relief workers, with bad weather and problems with access and communications due to landslides. Fifty per cent. of the buildings in Muzaffarabad and 60 per cent. in Balakot appear to have been destroyed.
	Across the affected areas the Pakistan authorities, the Pakistan Red Crescent Society and local people have been working tirelessly to support survivors and the injured. As always in disasters, it is local people who have led the effort to saves lives. The Government of Pakistan have set up a national response centre and a relief fund.
	When the earthquake struck, the UK immediately offered assistance, and as soon as a request for help was received, the Department for International Development activated the search and rescue teams which we had already put on standby. The first search and rescue team of 12 people, provided by the non-governmental organisation RAPID, left the UK in the early evening. It was the first international team to arrive in Pakistan, and a DFID humanitarian adviser went with it to facilitate its arrival and to begin co-ordination on the ground.
	At 2 am GMT on Sunday, an aircraft chartered by DFID left East Midlands airport carrying 75 search and rescue personnel from the fire brigades of Grampian, Lancashire, Lincolnshire and Manchester, the International Rescue Corps, and dog rescue teams from BIRD and CANIS, together with a further team from RAPID. The flight included a four-person DFID team to undertake assessment and co-ordination. The remaining space was loaded with blankets and other supplies. The British high commission and DFID's Pakistan office helped the teams to get into action immediately on arrival yesterday. The first RAPID search and rescue team was deployed to a collapsed tower block in Islamabad to help look for survivors. The second RAPID team and CANIS, with dog support, later joined it. The other search and rescue teams were flown to Muzaffarabad by the Pakistani military, where they have been looking for survivors in collapsed schools. The UK search and rescue teams have already made an important contribution and rescued a number of people.
	In addition to this assistance, DFID Pakistan immediately provided financial help in order to buy vital emergency supplies. Also on Saturday we agreed a grant to the World Health Organisation to enable it to send emergency health and trauma kits to support 40,000 people for three months.
	Shelter is an urgent priority as night temperatures fall. We are providing 1,000 winter tents and 10,000 tarpaulins to Islamic Relief from our existing stocks in Lahore. These are being trucked to Muzaffarabad as we speak. We are also sending additional tents and blankets from our stocks in Dubai, and we will fly out 19,000 blankets from our Marchington store also for distribution by Islamic Relief. The US Government are providing five Chinook and three Black Hawk helicopters today to help move people and supplies. This will make a significant difference to the relief effort. DFID is currently looking at options for further such assistance in conjunction with the EU and the UN.
	I have today informed the Disasters Emergency Committee agencies that the Government will meet the cost of transporting any of its relief supplies from the UK to Pakistan. Total UK assistance so far in the first 48 hours, including through the EU, is already over £1 million and that will increase as we provide further financial support to the relief effort. We will continue to do everything that we can to help.
	Acting as the EU presidency, we are liaising with EU member states in offering help, and the European Commission yesterday announced some £2.5 million for emergency assistance. We are working with the United Nations and other agencies, such as the Red Cross and Red Crescent, as well as with the Pakistani authorities, and the UN is expected to launch a flash appeal for emergency relief assistance later today.
	Many people in the Pakistani community in Britain have friends and loved ones in the disaster area. The Foreign and Commonwealth Office sent out on the first relief flight a rapid deployment team, which has set up an operations centre in Islamabad to assist British nationals. An FCO helpline in London is assisting concerned relatives. So far, there have been no reports of any British casualties.
	The response from within Pakistan and around the world shows the best of human nature at a time of crisis, and the UK will continue to play its full part in helping to ensure that those who have suffered so much in this terrible tragedy get the help and succour that they need over the coming days and weeks.

Andrew Mitchell: I thank the Secretary of State for his statement and for giving me advance sight of it.
	Our thoughts and prayers are with the families of those who have lost friends and relatives in this tragedy. As so often in such awful circumstances, we are indebted to those whose hard work and dedicated efforts are helping to bring comfort to those who are in desperate need. In particular, I pay tribute to the efforts of RAPID UK whose search and rescue teams have already saved lives in Pakistan. That is just one example of how the UK is helping.
	Many hon. Members have constituents who have relatives in the affected areas. As we speak, thousands of our constituents are waiting anxiously for news about their families and friends, and the thoughts of all of us are with them at this dreadful time.
	The Pakistani President has appealed for international assistance, and the British people, and especially those with links to the communities affected, are already giving with their characteristic generosity.
	Inevitably, children are suffering most acutely. Perhaps the Secretary of State will say a little more about how he plans to ensure that children's specific needs are addressed in response to this crisis.
	The Asian tsunami taught us some painful lessons about the need for a joined-up aid delivery effort. Will the Secretary of State inform us of the steps that he has taken to help ensure that those lessons have been learned and implemented? In particular, what discussions has he had with the UN Office for the Co-ordination of Humanitarian Affairs?
	During the tsunami crisis earlier this year, some concern was expressed about the service that the Foreign and Commonwealth Office offered to relatives of those involved in the disaster. Will the Secretary of State assure us that the FCO is doing everything possible to assist those who have relatives in the affected areas—obviously, I acknowledge that that is extremely difficult at this time? Is he satisfied that enough people are manning the emergency information helpline for relatives? Is information about those who are missing being collated and disseminated as effectively as possible? What arrangements have been made for Britons who return to the UK having lost relatives?
	The earthquake has struck in a highly sensitive part of the world. What is the Secretary of State's assessment of the appropriate role for British troops stationed in the area? Are British troops in Afghanistan helping with the relief effort there? Is the Secretary of State satisfied that co-ordination between DFID and the Ministry of Defence is adequate?
	Will the Secretary of State assure the House that he is doing everything he can to ensure a joined-up approach with the work being done by the leaders of the Muslim, Pakistani and Kashmiri communities in Britain, who are already doing so much to help the relief effort? Perhaps he will say a little more at this early stage about any plans that his Department has to support community-based non-governmental organisations in their response to the disaster?
	In the aftermath of the tsunami, concern was expressed about the operation of gift aid tax relief on donations to the Disasters Emergency Committee appeal. At this early stage, what steps will the Government take to encourage such tax relief on donations to appeals for this disaster?
	The Secretary of State has proposed a standing UN disasters fund—a pot of money that could be drawn upon in the event of a crisis like this, which would remove the need individually to negotiate with Governments each time a disaster occurs. That idea seems sensible and constructive, and, as he knows, Conservative Members support it. What is the status of the Secretary of State's discussions with his international counterparts on such a fund?
	Once again, we thank the Secretary of State for coming to the House and making his statement at the first available opportunity. In the same spirit, I hope that he will continue to keep the House informed through written and oral statements.

Hilary Benn: I thank the hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr. Mitchell) for his kind words. He gives me the opportunity also to extend my thanks to the DFID team who have been working since the early hours of Saturday morning to do the work that has enabled me to describe the response of the British Government. We owe them a very big debt of gratitude.
	I share the hon. Gentleman's concern for the children of the affected region. One thing that is happening immediately is that the search and rescue teams in Muzaffarabad are trying to find the children in the schools. They were first directed to those schools when they arrived, because parents in the local community are desperately worried about those who may still be trapped and can be rescued. I undertake to consider that in the decisions that we reach about funding the UN flash appeal, which, as I say, we expect later today or early tomorrow. Let me tell the House that we will make a significant contribution. I will consider what particularly we can do for children, but their needs for blankets, tents, water and medical supplies are the same as those of their parents and families.
	The hon. Gentleman asked about co-ordination. That is very important, which is why we sent a team of four out on the first relief flight to link up with the UN disaster assessment team that arrived from Geneva yesterday and with the co-ordinating unit that the Prime Minister of Pakistan has established. I spoke to the team just before coming to the House. The reports show that the co-ordination is not working badly, bearing in mind the fact that this is a major emergency that is putting great stress and strain on the Government of Pakistan in particular. I am anxious, as ever, that we learn the lessons. There is a premium on good information, because it ensures that the help that is being offered can be sent to the right places as quickly as possible.
	I am happy to offer the hon. Gentleman reassurance that the Foreign and Commonwealth Office is doing everything that it can; indeed, it put a team on the first relief flight to support the high commission. I pay tribute to Mark Lyall-Grant and his team for the outstanding work that they are doing.
	The Red Cross is looking to provide a service on tracing missing relatives. I am conscious of the Pakistani community here in the UK, although most of their families come from the region that is slightly less affected than the epicentre of the earthquake. Thankfully, no British casualties have yet been reported, but we wait to see what happens in time. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary and I, along with other Members, have large Kashmiri and Pakistani communities in our constituencies.
	NATO is considering what contribution the international security assistance force might be able to provide to the effort that is being made. The hon. Gentleman makes a very good suggestion about leaders of the Muslim and Kashmiri community. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary will shortly organise a meeting to talk to them. One of the ways in which we will provide support is through our offer to the Disasters Emergency Committee relief agencies to fund the flight. If any smaller community organisations have things that they wish to get there, they can link up with one of the DEC bodies to get them on to the flight, and the Government will pick up the transportation costs.
	On gift aid, the hon. Gentleman may be aware that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has announced that he will make it possible for that to be applied to telephone donations, to make it easier for people's money to have a full effect.
	Finally, on the humanitarian fund, about three weeks ago the UN summit agreed to support the principle of an enlarged emergency fund. I am able to report to the House that following a meeting that was hosted by a couple of other countries two days later, six nations have already agreed to put $150 million into the fund. Just under half of that will come from the United Kingdom. Several other countries that attended expressed support for the principle and are waiting to see what the arrangements will be. I am hopeful that by the middle of next year we will have a fund up and running, which I called for last December. That will mean that in such circumstances the UN has the money to get on with the job while the rest of us pitch in and help.

Andrew George: May I also thank the Secretary of State for providing me with early sight of his statement? On behalf of my hon. Friends, I echo the profound sympathy that has been expressed for those who have been affected by the devastating earthquake.
	Like the Secretary of State, I recognise that Britain has a special relationship with Pakistan and India and that, with more than 700,000 Kashmiris resident in the United Kingdom, the support that the Government offer those who fear that they have friends or loved ones who have been caught up in the disaster is greatly appreciated. I welcome the support so far and the efficiency with which it has been provided and planned.
	On the Secretary of State's last comment about community-based organisations, the offer of help to agencies that provide emergency relief is much appreciated. I am sure that he knows that, as well as those mentioned in his statement, the Shelter Box appeal, which provided so many shelter boxes after the tsunami, especially for Sri Lanka, is also providing hundreds of shelter boxes this week from Helston in my constituency. The support that the organisation provides and the connection with the rotary club in Islamabad is greatly appreciated.
	According to United Nations estimates, 2.5 million people require shelter. The tens of thousands of shelters, tents, blankets and other forms of support that the Secretary of State mentioned will clearly make a contribution but could he please comment on the international community's assessment of its capacity to respond to the urgent need for shelter, especially given the extreme cold at night in the region?
	The Secretary of State did not answer the question that the hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr. Mitchell) asked about assistance that may be available through the Ministry of Defence, especially given the capacity just over the border in Afghanistan. Will he comment on whether resources will be made available from the international security assistance force that is based there?
	What assessment has the Secretary of State made of the security situation in Kashmir? Only yesterday, terrorists killed 10 people in Kashmir and Jammu. What support can the UK offer to ensure secure access for humanitarian assistance to that region? What discussions have his officials held with the Kashmir International Relief Fund, which has logistical expertise and volunteers on the ground in Kashmir?
	May I probe the Secretary of State a little more about the co-ordination of assistance? The hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield rightly raised issues about the important role that the United Nations has to play. In answer, the Secretary of State referred to the co-ordination of assistance in the emergency that we are considering. However, he will know that the Red Cross reported last week that rivalries between hundreds of groups and perceptions of corruption and the politicisation of aid has led to the duplication of effort in some areas and a failure to get the aid to those most in need when responding to such emergencies. Does the Secretary of State agree that the United Nations' capacity must be built up so that it is better able to respond to the support and co-ordination of emergency relief through the UN Office for the Co-ordination of Humanitarian Affairs and its agents?

Hilary Benn: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his kind words and I pay tribute to the work of Shelter Box. When I was in Sri Lanka after the tsunami, I saw some of the Shelter Box tents being put up on a playing field next to a school and I know about the contributions of rotary clubs to making them available to those who need them. I am sure that they will be much appreciated by those who require shelter.
	On the great wish of the community in the UK to assist, the best thing that people can do is contribute money because that ensures that the things that are needed are bought. We do not want to end up with an excess of one sort of supply and a shortage of others. If people are looking to assist, the most helpful thing is to contribute money.
	I said earlier that NATO was considering what could be done; it is looking specifically at the resources that might be available in ISAF in Afghanistan because it is close by. That is currently being examined.
	I am of course aware of the security concerns. The incident to which the hon. Gentleman referred was on the Indian side of the line of control. So far, there is no indication that the fact that this is a sensitive and difficult region has got in the way of the relief effort. Indeed, our experience in Aceh in Indonesia, which was similarly plagued by conflict, showed that when a disaster of this magnitude strikes, people tend to put all that on one side and get on with the task in hand, which is to help people who are in need.
	I have not spoken to the Kashmir International Relief Fund, but I will find out whether my officials have done so and let the hon. Gentleman know. The Red Cross report, to which the hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr. Mitchell) alluded, is an important piece of work. There was particular concern about the number of small relief organisations coming in, but I would just say that the United Nations disaster team has deployed eight people. They have established on-site operations co-ordination centres in both Islamabad and Muzaffarabad, and we are working closely with them and with the Office for the Co-ordination of Humanitarian Affairs to ensure that there is effective co-ordination on the ground.
	I completely agree with the hon. Member for St. Ives (Andrew George) about the capacity of the United Nations system. Indeed, the proposals that I and others have made are precisely to strengthen that capacity, not only through a fund—which will mean that it does not have to wait for the hat to be passed round in order to respond immediately—but through strengthening the quality and capacity of humanitarian co-ordinators, because dealing with this kind of an emergency is a very different task from being the resident co-ordinator. I have also proposed that we introduce benchmarks by which we can measure our progress in responding to emergency needs. There will no doubt be lessons from this disaster that we can put into the work that we and others are undertaking.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Hon. Members will understand that this is the second major statement of the day, and that I have important business to protect. I understand why many hon. Members wish to question the Secretary of State on this matter, but it would assist us in making progress if we could have brief questions and short answers.

Gerald Kaufman: I thank my right hon. Friend for the Government's swift and effective response, and acknowledge that many people in this country will want to give their support and make an active response as well. Those of us who know the stricken areas well—including the devastated city of Muzaffarabad, to which access is difficult at the best of times—will want to send our sympathy to the families and friends of all those who have suffered, and to their loved ones in this country who are so worried about what has taken place. Does my right hon. Friend agree that if there is one encouraging aspect of this disaster, it is that the Indian and Pakistani authorities and troops are working together, and that if any good at all is to come out of this tragedy, it would be for their Governments and others to work together to bring about a settlement for Kashmir?

Hilary Benn: I am certain that my right hon. Friend's words of compassion will be gratefully received, and I can only echo his sentiments. One hopes that good will come out of this terrible disaster.

Malcolm Bruce: I am also grateful to the Secretary of State for his statement and to the Government for their prompt response in a variety of practical ways, which is what people need. In particular, I notice that President Musharraf asked for helicopters, and that helicopters have been provided. Speed of response to these disasters is crucial, and one of the most anguishing aspects of this one was hearing tales of children crying in the ruins and people not being able to get to them in time. Is there anything that we can do to achieve an even more rapid response in future? Does the Secretary of State also recognise that, after the initial response, the economy of Pakistan will face a major rebuilding challenge? Will that lead to a review of DFID policies and DFID aid programmes in Pakistan and Kashmir?

Hilary Benn: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his questions. We always need to ensure that we get search and rescue teams to a disaster as quickly as possible. As I have said, the first international team to arrive was from the UK, and it was one of the biggest teams. It went out there within a very short period of time, and many other search and rescue teams are now arriving from around the world. They are being deployed to the areas in need. I pay tribute to the speed with which our teams got themselves to East Midlands airport and on to those planes. Of course, we shall review our programme. As the hon. Gentleman knows, we have a substantial programme in Pakistan: £74 million this year. As well as committing resources to the relief effort we shall of course do the same for reconstruction, but that is a little way off. For now, we shall concentrate on immediate assistance.

Tom Clarke: I, too, thank my right hon. Friend for his Department's speedy response to the disaster. On television this morning, he will have seen President Musharraf making a moving appeal, especially for doctors, surgeons and consultants. Will that represent part of my right hon. Friend's comprehensive response?

Hilary Benn: What we have funded at the moment are the emergency health and trauma kits to which I referred earlier. On Saturday, the World Health Organisation put out an appeal for $500,000-worth of assistance and the UK picked up half the cost of that. We did that straight away on the first day. I have no doubt that when the UN flash appeal comes out shortly there will be a request for support to provide that kind of assistance. It may be helpful if I tell the House that there were two hospitals in Muzaffarabad. One was destroyed; the other is functioning but is severely overstretched and I understand that a French field hospital is on its way to provide help to the people there.

Tony Baldry: The argument for a substantially enlarged UN disaster emergency fund is unassailable. The Secretary of State said that so far only six countries had committed to it. Which G8 member states have yet to sign up to the Secretary of State's excellent idea? It must now be unassailable and there can be no excuse, certainly for G8 countries not to dig deep into their pockets to support that initiative.

Hilary Benn: I will send the hon. Gentleman a list of the countries. To be fair, some G8 countries present at the meeting support the idea but are waiting to see exactly what the management arrangements will be. He and I, and many others, think this a good idea; it is timely and if it was in place we could move even faster. We have learned the lessons and the fact that there is now support for the fund means, I hope, that in the future the UN will be able to respond even quicker. It would certainly have helped in Niger.

Mohammad Sarwar: The devastating earthquake in south Asia has wiped out whole communities in many places. Tens of thousands of people have lost their lives. Millions of people have been made homeless. That huge loss of life is tragic and our thoughts and prayers are with the victims and their families. The Government's swift response in providing assistance for the relief effort is welcome. People are dying every hour. Does my right hon. Friend agree that due to the magnitude of the tragedy we need to provide greater humanitarian aid and assistance to ensure that the people who survived the disaster do not die of hunger, disease and cold?

Hilary Benn: I agree completely. Currently, the issue is not money, because we shall put in the resources that are needed; it is how quickly we can get practical help to those in need. Where can we obtain the blankets, the tents, the medical supplies, the food, the water, the shelter, the heavy digging equipment and the helicopters? That is the issue. We are responding to the requests that have come to us. As I said, we shall fund significantly the UN appeal when it comes out. It is important for the House to recognise that the issue is the practical help that we give, not the sums pledged at the beginning. Britain has an honourable tradition, but some countries pledge large sums yet six months later we find that not all of that money was spent. I am much more interested in concentrating on the practical work in hand, which is turning the passion, commitment and desire of the British people to help into practical assistance on the ground. That is what we did in the first 48 hours and that is exactly what we shall carry on doing.

Peter Bottomley: Our communities will welcome what the Secretary of State said and the way in which he said it, especially his point that it is a matter of co-operation rather than competition.
	I have two practical points. How long will it take to replace the emergency stocks of tents and other things? Man-made and natural disasters seem to come around rather more regularly than one used to expect. Secondly, on a minor but important point, will there be difficulty in readmitting the search dogs to Britain?

Hilary Benn: On the first point that the hon. Gentleman raises, we will look to replace the tents as soon as possible. Indeed, I was discussing that with the team just before I came to the House.
	On the second question, as I recollect, I think that quarantine arrangements are applied to those dogs, but I will check on the position and write to the hon. Gentleman.

Roger Godsiff: As I represent the constituency in this country where the largest number of British Kashmiris live—they are mostly from Mirpur, Dadyal and Jakswari—may I extend, as other hon. Members have done, my sincerest condolences to the President, Prime Minister and people of Azad Kashmir on this terrible tragedy? I pay tribute to the work that the British Government have done already, but will the Minister give an assurance that, once the immediate relief efforts have been responded to, the British Government will use their position of presidency of the European Union for six months to seek to co-ordinate long-term relief to ensure that the infrastructure of that area is put back together and that the people are not forgotten at the end of the immediate aftermath?

Hilary Benn: I am sure that my hon. Friend's words will be much appreciated by those who are listening. I am happy to give that assurance. Indeed, I will discuss the crisis with EU Development Ministers at our informal meeting, to be held at the end of this month. Clearly, as we move from relief to reconstruction, the World Bank, the Asian Development Bank and the European Commission will have a very significant role to play. I can assure him that, during our EU presidency, we will ensure that all that support is brought to bear to back the reconstruction of the affected regions, once the immediate need for relief has been dealt with.

Pete Wishart: Will the Secretary of State join me in congratulating the Scottish-based charities and international organisations on their superb effort in responding with typical generosity? Does he agree that the next 24 to 48 hours are absolutely critical to demonstrate to an increasingly desperate and frustrated people that the aid is getting through? Can he assure me that the UK Government are doing all that they can to ensure that the infrastructure is being improved so that the aid can get through?

Hilary Benn: I am very happy to join the hon. Gentleman in those expressions of thanks to the agencies to which he refers. I can simply give him that assurance. I have reported to the House on what we have done in the first 48 hours. We intend to carry on. I pay tribute particularly to the military in Pakistan who have helped to clear the road to Muzaffarabad, thus allowing buses to go up to support the search and rescue team and tents from Lahore to arrive so that they can be distributed. They are continuing to work to open more roads because a lot more relief supplies can be brought in by road than by helicopters.

Ann Cryer: Many of us have Pakistani constituents who come from Kashmir, particularly Mirpur. As yet, I have not been able to find out what impact the earthquake has had on Mirpur. I wonder whether my right hon. Friend could inform me of that. My other concern is that, long before the earthquake, there were many homeless people in the area around Muzaffarabad owing to its proximity to the line of control. They were in displaced persons camps or in refugee camps. I wonder what their position is now.

Hilary Benn: The worst of the damage has clearly been around Muzaffarabad, Balakot and those parts around the epicentre. I think that the damage in Mirpur has been less extensive. I will find out whether we have further details that I can give to my hon. Friend. I am not aware of the position of those who were living in the refugee camps around the town, but from the pictures that I have seen and the reports that we have, I am sure that the damage is pretty extensive and that they have been badly affected, along with all the other residents of the town.

Julian Lewis: Clearly, the initial search and rescue operation and the speed of our response have been excellent, but does the Secretary of State recall the correspondence that we had quite a few months ago about constituents of mine who went as volunteers into areas that had been devastated by the tsunami only to find that no aid whatsoever for reconstruction had got through months after those vast sums had been raised? Therefore, the report should not have come as a surprise to any of us. Can he suggest measures that will address that concern, which has been expressed from every corner of the House?

Hilary Benn: The hon. Gentleman raises a very important point. The issue is partly about ensuring that the right relief supplies come, and I made that point earlier. If things are sent that are not immediately needed, they may rest on one side while more important things pass on their way through. There may be bureaucratic obstacles, but the UN team and, I am sure, the co-ordinating office of the Prime Minister of Pakistan will be working very hard to ensure that they do not happen. A practical example of that here in the United Kingdom is that the Pakistan high commission has set up emergency arrangements for issuing visas for people from Britain who want to travel to Pakistan and Kashmir quickly. I applaud it for what it has done. We will keep the situation under very close review. If difficulties arise, we will do our best to have them sorted out. It is important that we learn the lessons.

Gordon Prentice: My friend the Secretary of State told us that 50 per cent. of the buildings in Muzaffarabad had been destroyed, but people may understandably be reluctant to go into the buildings that are still standing. Have any requests been made to us to supply civil engineers and people like that who could pronounce on the integrity of the structures that are still standing?

Hilary Benn: We have not had any requests as far as I am aware, but I am told that one of the consequences of the construction of the buildings is that the walls tend to fall outwards when an earthquake strikes and the roofs come in. People will understandably be reluctant to go back into buildings that have been damaged even though they may appear to be standing. We will consider all such requests, but I think that they will come in time. The immediate priority is to get shelter to people who need it and who are out in the cold.

John Barrett: Many Members on both sides of the House will have constituents who are waiting to hear accurate information about what has happened to their friends and loved ones. In the near future, many people in this country may want to offer a place for these people to come to visit and stay. Will the Secretary of State discuss with the Foreign Secretary what can be done to speed up applications for temporary visits to the UK following this tragedy?

Hilary Benn: I am very happy to undertake to talk to my right hon. Friend about this issue. It is one of the things that we will have to look at as a consequence of what has happened.

Tony Lloyd: Many people, and not just those with Indian and Pakistani family backgrounds, will be grateful to my right hon. Friend for his words and the speed of his action. We know that many of the rural communities affected are extremely distant and that access to them is extremely difficult even under normal circumstances. Although it is early days, can a long-term plan be developed to make sure that the helicopters and air transport remain? With winter approaching and what we believe to be the destruction of residences, it will be a long time before people can be guaranteed to be adequately and properly secured from the effects of the winter elements.

Hilary Benn: My hon. Friend makes an important point. The main helicopter capacity, of course, comes from the Pakistan military, but the Americans have offered five Chinooks and three Black Hawks that will arrive today. The five Chinooks offer significant heavy-lift capability, and we saw in Indonesia that they will remain for as long as necessary to make sure that relief supplies are moved. At the same time, work continues to get the roads clear, but I know that access is difficult to the most remote communities. Together with the UN, we will continue to look at whether further helicopter support is required to ensure that relief supplies and other things that are needed for reconstruction can get to the most remote communities as they are accessed. However, we must recognise that some parts have not yet been reached by rescuers.

Paul Goodman: One in 10 of my constituents are from Pakistan or Kashmir, and they will have lost friends and relatives in this horror. Indeed, some of my constituents may be dead or injured. I spoke this morning to community leaders who asked me to thank the Secretary of State and the Department for what they are doing and to amplify the point that has just been made about help for rural communities. As he knows, communications in such areas is often extremely poor, and the people in them may be reached less speedily than those in more urban areas. Will he comment on that?

Hilary Benn: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his kind words. The support that we are providing and that we will continue to provide, including through our response to the UN appeal when it is issued, is designed to try to ensure that we get support to all the areas affected. Clearly some of the towns are easier to reach in the first instance, but it is very important that the relief effort then spreads out into the countryside. Like many other Members, the hon. Gentleman knows that the geography is very difficult, but we just have to keep up the effort to make sure that help reaches all the people who need it.

Keith Vaz: May I also commend my right hon. Friend on the efforts that he has made? He was right to praise the Pakistan high commission for setting up the emergency visa facility. Our entry clearance operation in Islamabad is hardly the best in the world at the moment. Will he consider speaking to the Foreign Secretary about deploying to Islamabad some of the entry clearance officers who are currently in the Gulf, who are not overburdened by the number of applications being made there, to help the processing of not only ongoing legitimate immigration cases, but, as the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (John Barrett) said, those who wish to come on a short-term visit?

Hilary Benn: I will be happy to pass on my hon. Friend's suggestion to the Foreign Secretary. We will consider all these things to see what we can do to help.

Simon Hughes: After the welcome early response, will the Secretary of State assure us that any further transport, engineering or medical help that is needed will be made available if we are asked for it, or if that need becomes apparent? Has the rest of the Commonwealth been asked to assist these two great Commonwealth countries that are suffering most?

Hilary Benn: I am happy to give the first assurance that the hon. Gentleman wants. We will continue to provide all the assistance that we can, along with others in the international community. I do not know whether a specific request has yet been made through the Commonwealth, but I will find out and contact him.

Shahid Malik: I arrived back from Pakistan in the past two hours and was there when the earthquake struck in Islamabad—it was a terrifying experience. I have been there with RAPID UK for the past two days and pay tribute to the Department for International Development. The Government of Pakistan have also asked me to convey their tribute to the Secretary of State because we were the first to get in there. I was at Margalla towers yesterday where RAPID UK was doing a superb job, although, sadly, it was pulling out more dead bodies than survivors.
	We have been talking about helicopters, but I have to tell the Secretary of State that based on information that I have picked up, there is still a desperate need for more helicopters. Aid can reach areas such as Islamabad, but places such as Muzaffarabad, Bagh and Rawala Kot are accessible only by helicopter. Unless we have more helicopters, the aid effort simply will not happen. Will the Secretary of State reassure me that the request for more helicopters will be considered? I believe that we are talking about a 10 to 15-year reconstruction programme and that we are in there for the long haul. What is his view about that?

Hilary Benn: My hon. Friend has experienced the terror of the earthquake at first hand and I join him in paying tribute to the work of the RAPID team, which is doing an extremely professional job. As I indicated earlier, in addition to the American helicopters that have been provided today, NATO is considering that very point. We are examining what more we might be able to do and an appeal has gone out through the European Union—we have done that as its presidency. I am conscious of the need for such further support and agree that a long-term commitment to reconstruction will be required. We have a programme in Pakistan that has been rapidly increasing in size in recent years. I assure my hon. Friend that we will pledge support, together with others in the international community, to help the reconstruction.

Sarah Teather: I recently visited Kashmir at the invitation of the Indian Government, but also have many constituents from the Pakistani-administered Kashmiri region. From speaking to those involved in the charitable effort this morning, I know that they will be grateful for the Secretary of State's offer to fund flights for the relief operation. However, to echo the comments made by the hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mr. Malik), people stress that their relatives tell them that access to remote areas is still the priority, as the Secretary of State mentioned, and that there is a desperate need for air transport. Will he please consider making further air transport mechanisms available?

Hilary Benn: I certainly will. We will continue, along with others in the international community, to ensure that we provide the resources that are needed. That is being examined urgently, but it is good news that the Americans came in with the helicopters today, which will significantly add to the existing capacity. However, I take the hon. Lady's point.

Sadiq Khan: I endorse the positive comments about the excellent response of the British Government and the non-governmental organisations. It has been said that the Pakistan high commission is giving instant visas here and in Islamabad if British people do not have them. What advice is the Foreign Office giving to Britons who want to travel to Pakistan, bearing in mind that some areas will be difficult to access and people might get in the way of experts who are trying to rescue their relatives and friends?

Hilary Benn: On the one hand, the advice is that the relief effort is the priority, as my hon. Friend outlines. On the other, I think about my family being in that situation and understand why people would want to go. We must respect the decisions that individuals make. As I said, the Red Cross is trying to establish a tracing service. If people do go, perhaps they could bear in mind the need to give priority to the relief effort, given that transport is scarce. However, I understand why people are doing everything that they can to discover what has happened to their loved ones.

Khalid Mahmood: I join my right hon. Friend in expressing my profound regret that all those people have lost their lives.
	With respect to the DFID programme, does my right hon. Friend realise that the huge devastation in the rural areas of Kashmir, where all built-up properties have been decimated, means that those people who remain after the tragedy will need long-term assistance? Will he also consider those relatives who are here? This morning I had a meeting with West Midlands police and have also spoken to Tarique Ghaffur, the assistant commissioner in London. They are willing to set up the emergency information helpline. Will my right hon. Friend speak to the consular service of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office to get that up and running, so that it is easy for people to be informed about what is happening to their friends and relatives in Kashmir?

Hilary Benn: On the second point, the FCO helpline is already operating, and I will pass on my hon. Friend's important point. We will continue to do all that we can to ensure that there is effective communication with the communities that are most worried. I am happy to consider any suggestions that colleagues make about how we can ensure that good information goes out about what exactly is being done and, in return, to feed information back to our disaster response team so that it can take that into account when carrying out its work.

Kali Mountford: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for what he just said. Although the generosity in my constituency will be unquestionable, many people will want to give not just money, but their skills, time and effort. We have heard the call for medical professionals, but many people who have different skills will want to make a personal contribution. As the disaster unfolds, can we ensure that those different talents and needs are properly utilised and that people go at the appropriate time?

Hilary Benn: We certainly will seek to do that. I hope to have available in the next day or so information on the DFID website that will help people who want to offer their skills to direct those to the right place. It is one way in which people want to help and it is important that we harness it in the right way.

Rob Marris: I salute the efforts of the UK Government. One problem that often arises after such situations is the spread of disease following the interruption of water supply and sewerage systems. What plans are being made, and what steps are being taken, to address those problems?

Hilary Benn: The emergency medical kits that we are helping to fund will be part of that response. I expect the UN appeal will in part look for support to address concerns about disease control and the provision of clean water and sanitation, which is an urgent priority. We will respond to that as soon as we receive it.

Si�n Simon: The city of Birmingham is a lot closer to Azad Kashmir and Pakistan than can be told from a map. The effect of the tragedy in our communities in terms of grief, loss and trauma is real and as if it happened in our country. Will the Secretary of State say a few more words about what lead DFID could take in giving support and succour inside our communities?

Hilary Benn: Hon. Members on both sides of the House have reflected the concern of the communities that they represent. I hope that people take some comfort from the efforts that we are taking, along with others in the international community, to help the families of those who have lost their lives by providing good information, keeping in contact, reflecting in our work ideas that have been suggested, and just acknowledging that it is a terrible trauma for many people, not just in the areas affected thousands of miles away, but in places much closer to home.

Claire Curtis-Thomas: My right hon. Friend will be aware that the British Council will fund a number of educational programmes for people from around the world who will come to the UK to study. Given this disaster, would it not be appropriate to make some of those awards available to young people to undertake disaster engineering courses in the UK so that we increase the capacity of countries to manage their own affairs when disaster strikes?

Hilary Benn: That is an extremely good suggestion which I am happy to consider. In making available funding and support we will look at how we can build into it preparation and preparedness to avoid a similar disaster occurring again. That is one of the lessons we have learned from other crises around the world. Engineers will indeed have a major role to play, both in identifying whether buildings are safe and, more importantly, in designing and helping to construct those buildings that we hope will rise from the rubble of this terrible earthquake.

Member Sworn

The following Member took and subscribed the Oath required by Law:
	James Devine, for Livingston.

Orders of the Day
	  
	Civil Aviation Bill

Not amended in the Standing Committee, considered.

Gwyneth Dunwoody: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The Secretary of State for Transport told the Select Committee that he would seek our dispensation so that he could today make a statement on financial protection for air passengers. I understand that this, the most controversial part of the Bill, will not be debated during our consideration of amendments. It is worrying that financial protection for air travellers will not be available after two years' consultation, and we are very concerned about that. May I have your guidance, Sir?

Brian H Donohoe: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Having tabled an amendment, I was quite surprised to find that it was not in order. As a consequence, none of the major concerns that have been expressed to me can be discussed. I wonder why that is, and I would be grateful for your comments.

Mr. Speaker: I shall deal with the hon. Gentleman's point of order first. Sometimes Members are surprised that their amendment is not in order, but I cannot help that surprise. I say to the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) that the provision concerning the Air Travel Trust in clause 9 is subject to the Ways and Means resolution passed on Second Reading, which relates specifically to a scheme to be funded by air travel organisers. Amendments that go beyond that specific form of funding are outside the scope of the resolution and therefore out of order.

New Clause 4
	  
	Commercial Flights Officer

'(1)   The Secretary of State shall appoint a Commercial Flights Officer whose duties shall be specified by the Secretary of State but shall include
	(a)   the requirement to collate and publish factual details relating to all enquiries referred to him by a Member of Parliament relating to aviation matters, predominantly, but not exclusively, concerning nightflights, noise from aerodromes attributable to aircraft taking off and landing and on approach to an aerodrome along a flightpath or in relation to a deviation from a flightpath,
	(b)   conduct any inquiry into aviation matters that he believes necessary and within the scope of this remit as laid down by the Secretary of State.
	(2)   The Commercial Flights Officer shall have unrestricted access to radar tapes and all other information relating to his enquiries, which shall include aircraft type, operator, time of flight, height, speed, route of origin and destination held by any organisation, company or group the Commercial Flights Officer believes may possess it.
	(3)   Any organisation within the United Kingdom concerned with the monitoring and movement of aircraft in-flight or at an aerodrome shall hold information concerning an aircraft's flight origin, destination, route, altitude, speed and operator for a period no less than six months.'. [Mr. Duncan.]
	Brought up, and read the First time.

Alan Duncan: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
	New clause 6Sound-proofing of buildings affected by aerodrome use.
	'(1)   The Secretary of State shall, no later than one year after the passing of this Act, make regulations under section 20(1) of the Land Compensation Act 1973 (c. 26) (sound-proofing of buildings affected by public works) imposing a duty on responsible authorities to insulate buildings against noise caused, or expected to be caused, by the use of aerodromes for the taking off and landing of aircraft.
	(2)   In making provision as to the level of noise giving rise to a duty under subsection (1) in respect of a building or class of buildings, and the area in which a building must be situated if the duty is to arise in respect of it, the regulations must make reference to the noise attenuation of individual rooms in buildings.'.
	Amendment No. 9, in clause 1, page 1, line 7, after 'below' insert
	'and having ensured that sufficient notice has been given prior to the introduction of the proposed charges,'.
	Amendment No. 8, in page 2, line 14, at end insert
	'(2A)   Any aerodrome authorities, making charges under subsections (1) for the purposes set out in subsection (2) shall be under a duty to
	(a)   monitor emissions and noise levels on an annual basis publishing annual figures for pollution and noise levels; and
	(b)   publish a statement of intent as to what levels of emissions and noise can be expected for the following twelve month period and to what extent it has and will achieve the purposes laid out in subsection (2).
	(2B)   An airline may appeal to the Secretary of State against any charge made by an aerodrome authority under subsection (1).'.
	Amendment No. 19, in page 2, line 21, after 'authority' insert
	', with the agreement of the local authority in whose area the aerodrome is situated,'.
	Amendment No. 10, in page 2, line 24, at end insert
	'(3A)   The Secretary of State shall report on the effectiveness of any charges made under subsection (1) for those purposes laid out in subsection (2), every twelve months after the passing of this Act and shall specify the sources of information used in its compilation, and publish each such report in such manner as he thinks fit.
	(3B)   The Secretary of State shall, by regulation, following the publication of each report made under subsection (3A), set targets for emissions and noise related to aerodrome authorities for the following twelve month period and report on the systems and means for monitoring noise and emissions in relation to aerodromes and those areas along flightpaths and whether they shall be subject to change over the following twelve months.'.
	Amendment No. 21, in page 2, line 38, leave out clause 2.
	Amendment No. 1, in clause 2, page 2, line 41, leave out subsection (2).
	Amendment No. 17, in clause 13, page 12, line 23, after 'Act' insert
	'(except for section [Sound-proofing of buildings affected by aerodrome use])'.

Alan Duncan: I thank you for your guidance on the point of order, Mr. Speaker. Perhaps in due course we might clarify whether it would be in order to discuss the issue on Third Reading, given the broader principles of the Bill and in order to wrap things up.

Mr. Speaker: Yes, that would be in order.

Alan Duncan: I am grateful to you, Mr. Speaker; otherwise, I would not have had much of a Third Reading speech.
	The group of amendments tabled in my name and by others addresses the heart of the Bill. Everyone, including the Secretary of State, accepts that this is to some extent a hotchpotch of a Bill. It has no great coherent form; it contains a group of half-concocted measures that do not quite come together into a serious regime. Following the deliberations in Committee, which were so ably conducted by my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier), the amendments are an attempt to introduce more cogency.
	The amendments largely define the way in which the Bill will work in practice in terms of noise and emissions, turning it from a simple enabling Bill into something more focused. The amendments also cover the growing problem of consumer concern about the monitoring of flights at night and the wall of silence faced by many people on the ground when investigating the problem of noise above them, particularly at night.
	Amendment No. 1 is a rather sly wolf in sheep's clothing. It would remove clause 2(2), which says:
	In subsection (3) for 'limit the number of occasions on which they make take off or land,' substitute 'impose limits or other restrictions relating to aircraft taking off or landing,'.
	That specifically removes from the Secretary of State's duties the stipulation to determine the number of flights at designated airports that may or may not take place at night, and replaces the number of flights with various other stipulations, particularly concerning noise and emissions. At first sight that seems logical, and the argument will be that as noise and emissions improve, the number of flights will become less relevant. However, beneath that seeming logic lies a severe danger that those who live under the flight path of an airport will experience many more flights at night, which despite the noise and emissions stipulations will be no less disturbing.
	Such an argument contains a fallacy of methodology. Decibels alone are not a measure of nuisance. Occasions of noiseundercarriages going down and the roar of engines that do not necessarily break the decibel barrierwake people up. We are facing, especially for designated airports and given the underlying concept perhaps for many other airports that are expanding at the moment, a depressing and unpoliced regime for the growth of flights at night.

Peter Ainsworth: My hon. Friend is addressing an issue of great concern to my constituents, which is why I have heard from both Tandridge district council and Reigate and Banstead borough council of their very strong support for amendment No. 1. Will my hon. Friend comment on the perversity of a Government who recently conducted a consultation exercise that included proposals to extend the quota of night flights while proposing legislation to get rid of that quota altogether?

Alan Duncan: The perversity is self-evident. As Chairman of the Environmental Audit Committee, my hon. Friend will be championing that issue even further. His record on that Committee and as a constituency MP is undeniable. I have in my hand two of the submissions from councils in his areaSurrey county council and Tandridge district councilwhich are compelling in the power of their argument. I shall skim through them. They say clearly:
	Section 2(2) of the Bill, as it stands, amends section 78(3)(b) of the 1982 Civil Aviation Act in such a way as to empower the SoS to discontinue applying limits to the number of night aircraft movements at Heathrow, Gatwick and Stansted and replace these with noise quotas alone.
	The nice, tidy phrase noise quotas encompasses all sorts of calculations that will allow more disturbance at night, even though it could be argued that there is less noise. It has been argued that that it is a perverse and deceitful measure of the problem that people on the ground face, because
	as aircraft become less noisy this would be likely to lead to more flights within the same noise quota limit and there would be no real benefit to the local community; particularly, in rural areas.
	I declare an interest in that respect, as my Rutland and Melton constituency is affected, as is that of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier), who has been fighting strongly against the increase in night flights from Nottingham East Midlands airport and who, I am sure, will speak in this debate. The noise is felt strongly because in an area where there is less ambient noise, the noise of an aircraft, however quiet, is more noticeable than it would be in an urban area. The argument against noise quotas continues:
	a movements limit can be easily understood by most people and is far more transparent and open to validation as compared to a noise quota limit . . . a movements limit provides particular protection for people who live very close to the airport . . . and who are especially troubled by ground noise at night.
	The arguments advanced by Tanbridge council and many others are compelling.
	The Government's intention is clearly set out in the air transport White Paper, which is, when Parliamentary time allows, to introduce legislation including
	an amendment to section 78 of the Civil Aviation Act 1982 so that controls such as night restrictions could, subject to public consultation, be set on the basis of noise quotas alone, without a separate movements limit.
	Amendment No. 1 is the one that we intend to press to a vote. The provision affects urban and rural constituencies alike and introducessomewhat surreptitiouslya new regime that represents a backward step.
	The next amendment addresses the problem of people being unable to find out the basic facts. There is nothing more annoying than encountering bureaucratic obduracy when trying to discover the facts about events that affect one's life. What happens when an aircraft flies overhead and wakes one up at 4 o'clock in the morning? One is likely to go to the nearest airport and ask, Was it you? to which the likely reply is, Not me, guv. One might then turn to National Air Traffic Services, which is in charge of air traffic control, but NATS would find it difficult to trace an individual aircraft. The Civil Aviation Authority says that it is duty bound to implement policy, not to answer specific questions and noise complaints. What we have is an extremely fragmented system in which public agencies with a public duty are failing to respond to the legitimate concerns of people who are disturbed by night flights. Even I, a Member of Parliament, get the runaround.
	To be fair, within such an unproductive and fragmented regime it is not easy for an airport to determine to its own satisfaction whether it is responsible. Nottingham East Midlands airport, which I visited at night only three weeks ago, has within its remit and control a fairly narrow air traffic control area, but it receives into that area flights that may be deviating slightly from the recommended flight path. What the airport calls its presentation profile of aircraft therefore lands it with a problem for which it is not necessarily to blame.
	In the context of massive environmental concern, there is no confidence that individuals can have their complaints dealt with properly and honestly. It may be that all are being dealt with honestly, but that is not how it seems. No records are properly kept for long enough; it is quite difficult to backtrace an individual aircraft and work out whose it was, at what height it was flying and at what speed it was going. In my view, a better regime, which I have mentioned to the Secretary of State and the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, the hon. Member for Regent's Park and Kensington, North (Ms Buck), on many occasions, must be established if there is to be any confidence in the new regime that is being created.
	If we are trying through the Bill to set up a regime for noise and emissions regulation, it must be logical for those who are most affected by noise or disturbancelet us call it nuisance rather than noiseto be able to ascertain who is to blame so that at least all of us who set public policy can have the facts at our disposal.
	The aim of new clause 4 is simple: it seeks to establish a single point of contact for members of the public who have complaints about aircraft noise and movements when they suspect, or even if they do not, that aircraft are deviating from established flight paths. At present, the regime is fragmented and everyone, including Members of Parliament, I think, feel that they cannot obtain the basic facts.
	The Bill does a great deal for designated airports, but relatively little for those that are non-designated. Little control exists over the expansion of flights at such airports. The Campaign to Protect Rural England points out that the Bill will not help to tackle the problem of increasing flights eroding rural tranquillity.

David Taylor: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. He is a county colleague who latterly, with other county colleagues on the Opposition Benches, has joined the campaign for the designation of Nottingham East Midlands airport.
	I am attracted by new clause 4, but perhaps the hon. Gentleman will explain why Members of Parliament need to act as a sieve for any inquiries that are referred to them. There are Members representing constituencies around regional and other airports whose interests seem to lie perhaps more with aviation than with the communities that they represent.

Alan Duncan: The hon. Gentleman raises a serious point. I shall flash back to amendment No. 1, given that the hon. Gentleman tabled a concomitant amendment which would have deleted the entire clause. He might consider that our approach is preferable because it would delete only the offending parts of the clause, rather than the whole clause. He may want to rethink that.
	It is fair to say that the technicalities of tracking aircraft are complicated. It is necessary to go through different air traffic control zones. The play-back of radar tapes or information systems is not as easy as replaying a video. There is expense and, inevitably in a matter of nuisance, some people become exercised and are likely to throw a disproportionate number of complaints at an airport, particularly through campaigning organisations. To persuade the Minister, I hope, that I am being absolutely reasonable in tabling the new clause, I thought that a good model for setting up a monitoring system was that of the ombudsman, where we go through the filter of a Member of Parliament. In many instances, the process is automatically ticking the box and sending on the complaint. However, I think that all of us in our constituency life will have said to someone, I will send it to the ombudsman but are you really sure? Don't you think that you are a bit illogical here, there or somewhere else? Aren't you going over the top? Have you lost your perspective?
	To set up a system that is logical, practicable, fair and sensible, it is reasonable to use a Member of Parliament as a filter. We determined that it would be more persuasive to the Minister to have that layer of approval and sifting so that, as with so many complaints about this place, it is not necessary to field many complaints that are frivolous and malicious. I hope that that argument will be persuasive to right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House.

Lembit �pik: As I understand it, it is the intention to apply the new clause to commercial flights. Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that it is not his intention to extend the clause to general aviation, not least because the logistical and technological demands that would be put on general aviation by so doing would probably be unaffordable to the British general aviation community?

Alan Duncan: Yes, I can confirm that. That is exactly why we have referred to the commercial flights officer. We chose our words carefully to address exactly the concern that the hon. Gentleman has expressed. I hope that that adds even further to the powers of persuasion that we are able to exercise. We hope that the Minister will accept our argument.
	I could speak for much longer on these matters but I do not wish to dwell on them. Other Members wish to speak and there are other amendments that I want to address.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Randall) will, with your permission, Mr. Deputy Speaker, speak on new clause 6. I will leave that clause primarily to him, especially as he is an expert on insulation. He will hit me later.
	Amendment No. 9 arises because of our concern that the Bill does not form part of a coherent and complete environmental policy. Consideration in Committee showed that it did not do so. We believe that airlines have a right to be properly consulted and informed. The Minister stated in Committee:
	There is no question that aviation has an impact in environmental terms, and we need to rise to the challenge that it presents. Those living close to airports have genuine anxieties, which the Government and I recognise absolutely and we must move forward in responding to it.[Official Report, Standing Committee B, 5 July 2005; c. 6.]
	The Bill states that aerodromes may fix their charges by reference to noise and emissions and may do so to encourage the use of quieter aircraft that produce lower emissions. Both objectives are laudable and we do not demur from that. However, the Minister's response does not quite square with the fact that achieving lower noise and emissions objectives perhaps requires targets. At present, there are no determinants of success and there is no compulsion even to report progress. My hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier) went further into that in Committee.
	Evidently, seeking the cover of legislation has little to do with an appreciation of real environmental impact. We know that some airports levy charges, but no evidence has yet been presented to show that these have helped reduce emissions or, for that matter, noise. The amendment is an attempt to ensure that we have the facts at our disposal to make sure that the improvements that we want to see can properly be measured and appreciated.
	Amendments Nos. 8 and 10 very much come together. Amendment No. 8 states:
	Any aerodrome authorities, making charges under
	the relevant subsections
	shall be under a duty to  . . . monitor emissions  . . . and  . . . publish a statement of intent.
	Amendment No. 10 describes the concomitant duties of the Secretary of State in respect of the same objective. The amendment proposes that aerodrome authorities should publish details
	of any charges made under subsection (1) for those purposes laid out in subsection (2).
	They would also have a duty to monitor emissions and to publish annual figures and a statement. Crucially, airlines would have a power of appeal against such charges.

Charles Walker: One of my constituents' concerns is the expansion of Stansted airport, which wants not only to increase capacity on one runway but to construct another runway. It is all very well for the Government to talk about reducing emissions, but is it not understood that that does not square with the planned massive expansion of air travel over the next 10 to 15 years?

Alan Duncan: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. I have omitted to say that one can have an imbalanced regime of charges that can deliberately skew the economic benefits or appeal of Stansted compared with Heathrow and Gatwick. There is deep concern in the aviation world that within the Bill are provisions from which will emerge decisions and a regime that will create an artificial case for the expansion of Stansted. The imbalance and inequity that it is thought will emerge from this has caused deep concern. It has the prospect of being utterly perverse.
	The Minister needs to tell the House that there will be some form of uniformity in the manner in which contracts that allow penalties, fines and charges for noise and emissions will be applied. If they applied only to two airports and not as much to another, funny things would happen. That means that the Bill would not succeed in being a universal, cogent and coherent environmental measure. We need some serious answers from the Minister.
	We are asking that airports monitor emissions and noise levels annually and publish the annual figures and statement of intent as a price for confirming in law considerable powers. That hardly seems unreasonable. It is not burdensome to require them to publish those details, because if they do not know them in the first place the Bill means nothing whatever. As the Minister herself pointed out in Standing Committee B on 5 July,
	details of an aerodrome's charging policy will be available as part of the condition for use of the aerodrome. In the case of BAA, which runs the designated airports, the conditions for use are made publicly available on the internet. Similarly, Manchester is an example of a non-designated airport that does so.
	She continued:
	As regards noise, the largest airports are covered by the Aerodromes (Noise Restrictions) (Rules and Procedures) Regulations 2003 which implement the European directive on noise-related restrictions . . . It includes a description of the effect of a noise climate without further measures and, for those measures already planned to lessen noise impact over the same period, forecasts noise contours, including an assessment of the number of people likely to be affected by airport noise. [Official Report, Standing Committee B, 5 July 2005; c. 36.]
	The agencies are collecting figures but, again, I have serious concerns about the methodology used for the measurement of noise. We simply ask the airports to prove that the charges produce the results specified. If they treat them as a means of milking the airlines, the airlines should have recourse to the Secretary of State. None of that should be burdensome, and it would simply provide minimal information on something that is of huge public concern. Much of the information is already being provided, and the amendment would simply put its provision on a statutory footing. It is not Mission: Impossibleit is not even mission tricky.
	As I said earlier, amendment No. 10 essentially defines the Secretary of State's concomitant duties in setting targets for the emission and noise to define a logical regime within which the Bill's powers could be exercised. The amendments are a constructive contribution to the Bill, and they give it far more cogence as well as more coherence and a better shape. They will make the legislation far more palatable and practicable for those affected by it, whether they are airlines or people who live under flight paths. We hope that the Minister will see reason and appreciate our good intentions in tabling the amendments. I very much hope, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that we can press at least amendment No. 1 to a vote.

David Taylor: I wish to speak to amendments Nos. 19 and 21, which were tabled in my name. Amendment No. 19 relates to the fixing of charges imposed on aircraft operators who breach noise and emission requirements. It seeks to ensure that the local authority in whose area the airport is situated is in agreement with the scheme that has been designed. Amendment No. 21, as the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Duncan) said, seeks to delete clause 2, which attempts to substitute quota counts for the existing numerical limits on air traffic movements at designated airports. Without my amendment No. 19, the Bill could be a polluters' charter, because airport managers can write their own rules and set their own noise levels, as was debated at some length on Second Reading. I will not repeat the thrust of that debate, but no other industry has been handed such a licence. It is like asking the breweries to tackle alcoholism, or the fast food industry to tackle obesity. No other industry has been handed a charter to set its own pollution levels and no other industry is allowed by lawas would be the case if the Bill were enactedto ignore the local authority and the local community. No other industry is given such immunity from the law.
	In my constituency, the Nottingham East Midlands airport, as it styles itself, has one of the patchiest records on night-time noise climates of any European airport. Unfortunately, the Minister, or perhaps her predecessor, did not give sufficient weight to independent reports that say that night-time noise and the penalty regimes associated with it are intolerable and unacceptable. Nottingham East Midlands airport, which is owned by the Manchester Airports Group, has already drafted a noise control scheme in the form of a 10-point plan, and it intends to double night-time noise. Its version of a noise control scheme is designed to increase the number of aircraft movements without having any regard to noise and without any care for the community. I would be concerned if my amendment No. 19 were not incorporated in the Bill.

Mark Todd: My hon. Friend is making a powerful argument. In my brief contribution to Second Reading, I made the same pointthere is no independent process for determining whether the control regime, or the charging regime that stems from it, is appropriate to the circumstances. My one doubt about my hon. Friend's amendmentwhich, I recognise, has local supportrelates to the choice of the local authority as arbiter. The Civil Aviation Authority, or a similar body, would be much more appropriate to determine whether such a scheme is well designed.

David Taylor: I accept the thrust of my hon. Friend's argument. If a regional airport such as Nottingham East Midlands airport is located in a small to medium-sized authority with correspondingly few resources, it may be difficult for the authority to represent properly the concerns of its communities. The county tier may be a more appropriate level, so my hon. Friend makes a fair point.

Edward Garnier: I thank the hon. Gentleman both for his contributions to these debates in the Chamber and outside and for allowing me to intervene. I agree with his hon. Friend the Member for South Derbyshire (Mr. Todd) that if we limit the controlling authority to the local district council, we will run into exactly the same problems that we have experienced with the planning of ground developments at the airport. Surely, if we are to deal with Nottingham East Midlands airport, which has considerable financial weight, we need an organisation as big as the county council, which is equally equipped. At a later date, would he consider moving local control from the district council to the county council, as we will achieve a better result that way?

David Taylor: As I suggested in my response to my hon. Friend the Member for South Derbyshire (Mr. Todd), that is probably a worthwhile improvement. Indeed, the amendment refers to the local authority without specifying which local authority, so the county council may be the appropriate body in certain circumstances. I fear that Manchester Airports Group or other organisations that own regional airports could use the powers in the Bill in an unacceptable way. The residents of Leicestershire, Derbyshire and Nottinghamshire are distant from the shareholders and council tax payers in Manchester so, in this case, the pollution starts far from home. We need a locally accountable and responsible group to intervene on communities' behalf. All the residents' groups with which I have had contact about Nottingham East Midlands airport are alarmed about the lack of external accountability and are disappointed that it is not yet part of the Bill, as my amendment proposes.
	The Government have repeatedly refused to designate Nottingham East Midlands airport, and my amendment compensates for that failure to act. The mantra of local solutions for local problems suggests that there should be a local agreement between the various partiesthe airport, the communities, local authorities and airport usersbut, in practice, that does not occur. The Bill does not create the environment for a local agreement. It provides the power for the airport to impose its will in certain circumstances. It disfranchises the residents and disempowers the local authority. That is what I am trying to tackle in the amendment.

Mark Todd: I thank my hon. Friend for giving way again. There is a further powerful point, which was touched on briefly by the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Duncan)there is no process even for the airport user companies to challenge what the airport might do, other than through the normal commercial process of taking their business away, which may not be an option open to them. I remain puzzled by the Government's determination to place the power solely in the hands of one private sector body, without any process other than the courts, presumably, as a challenge to the reasonableness of its actions.

David Taylor: I do not dissent from a word that my hon. Friendmy neighboursaid. It may be that the Minister, whom I greatly respect, believes that the Bill will get the problems of noise and penalty regimes off her desk. I do not think that it will, particularly if the airport designs and imposes an unacceptable regime. If, as in the case of Nottingham East Midlands airport, the airport continues to be noisy at night, the problem will come bouncing back to the Minister even more loudly.
	Unamended, the clause is contrary to democratic principles. Through the democratic process people should have a voice in shaping the regimes that try to protect them from the environmental downsides of large aviation neighbours. It is contrary to the principles of sustainable development, which call for noise reduction and increased participation. The clause is contrary to our own Government's principles of a local solution. Imposition by the airport, as anticipated in the amendment, without the involvement of a local authority, perhaps the county council, will not be a solution. We need to introduce into this part of the Bill some element of accountability.

Justine Greening: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that what his and our amendments represent is certainty? For an airport operator who wants to expand or residents faced with the possibility of blight in the coming years, the amendments would provide some certainty within which all stakeholders could operate. At times, huge capital investments are made in the industry. Surely all concerned deserve a framework within which to debate and resolve issues such as pollution.

David Taylor: I agree with the hon. Lady. What is needed is a greater degree of formality. With the present legislative and regulatory regimes, if a non-designated airport is unwilling to go very far down the road that a local community might like to see it travel, there are no levers to apply to that airport. It may have been subject to a section 106 regime at some point in the past, but without designation, which we are not discussing, there is a fog of uncertainty about its obligations.
	People sometimes say that independent consultative committees have some powers to influence the way in which airports operate. My constituents are extremely concerned about the way in which the ICC works in our area. I suppose it is not much different from those in other parts of the country. The policies that Nottingham East Midlands airport put to the independent consultative committee are not locally based policies. They are based on Department for Transport policies, without any regard for what people in the local community want.
	It is difficult to express in words the extreme and long-lasting frustration that my constituents feel about centrally devised policies being rubber-stamped by airport management, with no effective local say or input. The recent White Paper effectively told Nottingham East Midlands airport what its future growth will be and what it must do to ensure that that growth takes place, with a master plan process that simply repeats what is in the White Paperliterally, a self-fulfilling prophecy. We must have real local authority input.
	Amendment No. 21, the second of the amendments that I tabled, deals with the quota count system. The hon. Member for Rutland and Melton made a fair summary of the weaknesses of that approach. It professes to be a regime that will encourage the uptake of quieter aircraft, but its numerous shortcomings allow far more planes to fly at night while maintaining the same so-called noise climate. Although the planes may indeed be marginally quieter, it is the number of noise events, rather than a few decibels more or less, that causes the misery of sleep deprivation to residents living under flight paths. No matter what regime is designed and developed, it is essential that the cap on numbers of movements which exists in designated airports is retained. The Bill as currently worded merely enables the Secretary of State to set a limit based on noise rather than movements.

Adam Afriyie: Does the hon. Gentleman's postbag, like mine, contain many letters from residents under flight paths expressing concern about the noise of individual aircraft that wakes them up, rather than about theoretical values, quota systems or wonderful maps of areas affected by noise? Is he, like me, concerned about the noise of an individual aircraft that wakes and disturbs people?

David Taylor: The hon. Gentleman makes a fair point. The problems experienced by my constituents tend to be in the communities that lie around the airport, which are under virtually every flight path coming into or out of the airport. Given the strong business lobby for a quota only system, it is only a matter of time before the movements limit is abolished.

Susan Kramer: At the same time as the Bill has been going through Parliament, in my constituencya good part of which is under the flight path; I live under the flight path myselfa consultation has been taking place which would have the effect of increasing the number of night flights and therefore the amount of night-time disturbance. Another consultation, also affecting my area, is planned for next spring. It would end runway alternation and increase the amount of disturbance during the day. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that those consultations expose the fact that the Bill is not intended to reduce disturbance, but that it is a framework to allow the industry to follow its planned direction of predict and provide, with ever-increasing flights and without regard to what happens to people on the ground?

David Taylor: I am sympathetic to the point that the hon. Lady makes. I am fairly sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) will refer to similar matters if he catches the Deputy Speaker's eye.
	The problem in relation to noise is that there is no official noise index to show night noise in the UK, although Leq is recognised during the day period, between 7 am and 11 pm. However, the Government produce noise maps for airports at night using Leq contours. They argue that it is an adequate way of expressing aircraft noise levels, and they produced noise for London Heathrow airport for its recent consultation on the night noise regime, which the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Susan Kramer) mentioned.
	That method can be totally inadequate as a way of assessing the impact of a small number of noisy events distributed over an otherwise long and tranquil period. That is explicitly endorsed by the World Health Organisation in its guidelines for noise levels. It states:
	Where there are no clear reasons for using other measures, it is recommended that LAeq,T be used to evaluate more or less continuous environmental noises. However, when there are distinct events to the noise, as with aircraft or railway noise, measure of individual events such as the maximum noise level (LA Max) or the weighted sound exposure level (SEL) should also be obtained in addition to LAeq,T.
	As planes get marginally quieter, many more will be allowed to fly at night under a pure quota count regime. It is the frequency of noise events that can ruin a night's sleep. If I am woken up, say, by all noise events over 90 dB, I will not be pleased to hear that twice as many, even if they are 92 dB rather than 95 dB, will be countenanced under a future regime. Therefore, it is essential that the numbers limit on noise on night-time movements is retained.
	One final weakness that I shall identify in the quota count system is that it is extremely dubious to equate a 3 dB reduction

Justine Greening: I thank the hon. Gentleman for allowing me to intervene twice. He raises a valid point because my area of Putney has no noise monitoring in process, so the only way to monitor the amount of noise that we have to bear is by literally counting the number of planes overhead. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that what the Government propose in the Bill will take away the one control that we have and my constituency will be left with no means whatever of assessing the amount of noise other than by our own ears? We are looking for something far more scientific than that.

David Taylor: I accept that point in its entirety. The hon. Lady's predecessor in the seat that she represents made a powerful case in this Chamber and in Westminster Hall on a number of occasions, and no doubt he will be in a position in future years to echo that case again.
	I was making the point that it is dubious statistically to equate a 3 dB reduction with a halving of annoyance, even at the individual event level. EPNdBeffective perceived noise decibelsis a measure of noise energy, and it is by no means certain that a halving of noise energy results in a halving of noise heard by the human ear, despite the name that is used.
	The Government's attempt to use the Bill not to tell those who live around airports exactly how many night flights they can expect and to disguise the true number is in the eyes of many a cynical manoeuvre. The various judicial review hearings instigated by London boroughs around Heathrow airport in recent years resulted in the High Court forcing the Department for Transport to continue revealing publicly exactly how many night flights the industry was to be alloweda straightforward way for noise-affected populations to understand clearly exactly what was going on over their heads.
	The complex and difficult to follow quota count system seeks in effect to bamboozle residents into thinking that more night flights somehow equals less noise and less sleep disturbance, which is a counter-intuitive proposition for my constituents as what Heathrow, Gatwick and Stansted get today, Nottingham East Midlands airport will encounter sooner or later. That is why absolute numbers must always be made available as part of any night flights regime. If they are not, and as the Bill seeks to set aside any responsibility to reveal night flight numbers, clearly the suspicion arises that someone is or could be trying to hide something. That is not a very defendable position, particularly when the High Court has, in the laudable and understandable interests of fairness and clarity, previously found against the Department for Transport on this very issue and determined that true numbers should always be revealed.
	At present, the Government control night noise at Heathrow, Gatwick and Stansted via the noise quotas, and other airports in the UK use a similar systemquieter aircraft using less of the noise quota. However, the only way to stop the number of movements increasing, which is the problem for communities lying around airports, is to maintain the current controls, and that means that the proposed change in clause 2 that I seek to delete should not be enacted.
	I shall conclude with one brief comment addressed to those right hon. and hon. Members who do not represent airport communities in the London area, where the airports are designated. Why should such Members who represent seats affected by the activities of other airports be concerned? Quite simply, the types of restrictions used for designated airports will be and are a model for controls at many regional airports, and a precedent of no limits at Heathrow would be used cynically by the industry to argue that there should be no movement limits at all in any other regional airport. This is a danger for every airport community in the United Kingdom.
	Clause 2, which I seek to delete in amendment No. 21, is purely for the advantage of the airline industry and it will be to the disadvantage of the airport communities. For that sole, significant and powerful reason it should be removed in its entirety.

John Redwood: I rise to support my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Duncan) in his excellent amendments, particularly amendment No. 1 which seeks to delete clause 2(2). Many of my constituents live under the flight path into and out of Heathrow from the west. We have experienced growing numbers and growing volumes of noise from aircraft movements at antisocial times of the night, even under the current regime, and there is a great fear that the Government's proposals today will make this considerably worse.
	I support those colleagues in the House who have already made it clear that we need some limit on the numbers of aircraft movements as well as an overall control on the amount of noise, because it matters very much how many times noisy aircraft go over during the night, and even more, when during the night they might go over. Under the current regime, with some control over aircraft numbers, there is a tendency for there to be more flights closer to the times when people are going to bed or waking up. If we remove all numerical controls on flights, there will undoubtedly be more flights over the course of the night, at the times when it will be even more difficult for people who are trying to sleep in a rather quieter environment, when other background noise is less pronounced or has disappeared.

Peter Ainsworth: As my right hon. Friend will know, my constituents are affected by Gatwick, which has a similar problem, with rather more night flights than at Heathrow. Will he reflect on the fact that the problem is most acute during the summer months when demand is greatest for these antisocial flights and when people sleep with their windows open? The Bill, if unamended, will cause serious problems to people living in a wide circle round airports throughout the country.

John Redwood: I quite agree with my hon. Friend. [Interruption.] I hear the Minister from a sedentary position asking whether I realise this is regulation. Yes, and while I am a keen deregulator, I have never said that I wish to see the end of all regulation, and the deregulatory programme that we strongly urge the Government to adopt has never included a reduction in standards for controlling noise around or adjacent to airports, because that is an example of the kind of regulation that we think is perfectly reasonable to impose. Previous Conservative Governments imposed it, this Government have run on with it for eight years and we see no reason to dilute it or change it adversely at the moment.

Edward Garnier: The Minister's sedentary remarks are all the more to be regretted because we are talking about the rule of law, and if airports and airlines can operate without the law, we are falling into a rather tragic set of circumstances. If the Minister thinks that our acceptance of regulations in this circumstance is something to be criticised, we ought to be even more worried about the calibre of person sitting on the Treasury Bench.

John Redwood: I will not be drawn into anything quite so uncharitable, but I understand the drift of my hon. and learned Friend's wise and learned comments.
	One of the great weaknesses of the Government's environmental policy lies in aviation. They are stumbling over what to do about it. We know that on emissions control, it is outside the main restrictions in international agreements, and it is the fastest growing area of extra pollution; and we now see that on noise, they want to dilute sensible controls because they are under pressure from some in the industry to do so. It is particularly appropriate that today for the first time in the Chamber we have the warning of just how easy it is to make a beautiful building ugly without the right controls on new development, because we see the new screen where the scaffolding supporting it cannot be taken down because apparently that is all part of the revised plan. It seems a great pity that there is no sensitivity to history, tradition and beauty, and I am worried that we have something parallel going on with the lack of sensitivity to the wish of our constituents to have peace and quiet, particularly in the dead of night.
	The crucial point that the Minister must address is that even if the average aircraft is less noisy than the average aircraft five or 10 years ago when previous controls were introduced, none the less, if there are more of these aircraft still creating considerable amounts of noise, and more of them will be generating that noise at the dead of night when it will be so much more intrusive, surely that is a substantial deterioration in the environment in which our constituents live and something that we should naturally protest about, and on which we should urge the Government to do something better.
	I hope that the Minister will heed the warning of the ugly screen and realise that it would be bad to make a much bigger intrusion into the environment by diluting many hon. Members' constituents' protection from noise. It is our duty to tell the Minister that constituents in Labour seats, as well as constituents in Conservative seats, are upset by the current amount of background noise and that they will be extremely angry if the Government allow far more noise at the dead of night, when it will be so much more disruptive. I strongly support the comments of my hon. Friends the Members for Rutland and Melton and for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier) and their excellent amendments.

Laura Moffatt: I am grateful for the opportunity to contribute, Mr. Deputy Speaker. In particular, I want to tease out certain aspects of amendment No. 1 and new clause 4, because I do not recognise some of the arguments that I have heard in this debate.
	I must challenge the proposition advanced by my hon. Friend the Member for North-West Leicestershire (David Taylor) that one cannot be in favour of aviation and argue the case for quieter aircraft. That is utter nonsense. I have balanced those issues for many years as a member of the consultative committee at Gatwick and as an environmental campaigner within Crawley borough council.

David Taylor: I am not sure whether I said that. MPs whose constituencies are positively affected by aviation in economic terms, but negatively affected by aviation in environmental terms, sometimes lean too far towards the economic end of the spectrum at the expense of their constituents' quality of life.

Laura Moffatt: I thank my hon. Friend for that comment, but I rest my case. We should support economic activity at our local airports and ensure that our constituents have as much peace as possible, particularly at night.
	The arguments are difficult. Conservative Members have already pointed out that Gatwick's position in the family of airports would be compromised if the considerable number of night flights were to end. We must move forward cautiously on reducing night noise.

Peter Ainsworth: The hon. Lady has not grasped the Government's objective. She knows that the consultation on the future of the night flights regime at Gatwick, Heathrow and Stansted has recently recommended that the quota should continue, and downward pressure on the number of flights seems a sensible approach. However, the Government want to take away the quota altogether, and the hon. Lady knows that her constituents and mine will be the first to suffer.

Laura Moffatt: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. I do not share the view that the only way in which to reduce noise in our constituencies and to make our constituents' lives more peaceful is to decrease the number of events. Our constituents worry about noise. If all night flights were completely silent, who would complain? No one.

Susan Kramer: I wonder whether the hon. Lady understands that over the years my constituents who live under the flight path have heard many speeches saying that aircraft are getting quieter, but aircraft will never reach the point at which they do not wake up people at night. People who found the flights bearable three years ago or five years ago now find that they and their children are being woken up because so many more night flights occur. When I introduced a petition on the matter, people formed a queue and I got a signature every 30 seconds because night flights have become so intrusive. The argument that planes are quieter is not the reality on the ground.

Laura Moffatt: I thank the hon. Lady for her contribution, but I do not share her view. I do not know about her constituency, but I know about mine: people in the most southerly point in my constituency were regularly woken by aircraft noise, but that is no longer the case because aircraft are getting quieter. For many years, I did not use the phrase quieter aircraftI always used the phrase, less noisy aircraftbecause I firmly believed that progress was impossible without downward pressure on aircraft noise. I do not share the view that we should not support a mechanism to reduce the total noise that people suffer.

Lembit �pik: I do not want to get directly involved in the debate, because I do not live near an airport. Will the hon. Lady accept that aircraft engines are quieter than they used to be? People are concerned that the Bill will allow the economic attractions of what amounts to the increased disturbance of the local environment near large airports to outweigh environmental considerations. If the relationship between aviation and politics were less confrontational, the debate might be less fractious.

Laura Moffatt: I sincerely thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention, which goes to the heart of many of the debates in this Chamber and in our constituencies about how airports are used. People support airports when they use them, but they do not support them if they are disturbed at night, and we must square that circle.
	Crawley borough council and Gatwick Airport Ltd have a legal agreement on all sorts of environmental levels. I often find it difficult to reflect the debate in this Chamber, because I do not recognise that one is either an environmentalist or pro-aviation. It is possible to draw up reasonable plans to ensure that communities are relatively quiet, and I campaign for quieter aircraft and for quieter ways of running our airports both by day and by night. In addition, ground noise makes a major contribution to the total noise generated by an airport. Unless we work co-operatively like Crawley borough council and Gatwick airport, we will not make progress and will find ourselves continually debating the matter in this Chamber.
	Finally, many of my constituents will be bemused by some Conservative Members' contributions on the difference between noise disturbance in an urban area and noise disturbance in a rural area. After the debates on Second Reading and in Committee, my constituents were surprised to learn that they are less likely to be disturbed by aircraft noise because they live in an urban area. That argument is difficult to sustain, but two Conservative Members have already advanced it as a reasonable explanation of why their constituents are more affected by aircraft noise than mine.[Interruption.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. If the hon. Member for Broxbourne (Mr. Walker) wants to intervene, it would be helpful if he were to do so in the normal way.

Justine Greening: Surely, given the hon. Lady's words, it is vital that she support our amendments to provide the framework for resolving this ongoing debate. It is rather like a rugby team and a football team trying to play on the same pitchpeople are debating in totally different ways, and we require a common set of rules. That is what our amendments seek to do. I therefore hope that the hon. Lady will join us in supporting them, should there be a Division, so that we can, for once, have a common debate and reach some consensus.

Laura Moffatt: I thank the hon. Lady, but I do not support that view. I firmly believe that we should continue to pursue a downward pressure on the total noise from airports. Focusing just on noise events is not the future for aviation or for communities around airports. The rugby players and football players in my constituency are looking for reasonable measures to continue a good relationship with a major airport that has provided many jobs to the town for many years, so that we are able to live together in harmony. The proposals before us are reasonable and fair.

Edward Garnier: Let me explain something to the hon. Member for Crawley (Laura Moffatt) straight away. I fully accept that she is here to speak for her constituents, whether they work at Gatwick airport or are affected by it. I do the best for my constituents, even though the nearest airport to my constituency is between 25 and 50 miles away. Nottingham East Midlands airport is strangely named: it is wholly within Leicestershire, has a Derbyshire postcode, and is owned by 10 local authorities in Manchester. The Government are keen on stressing how important it is that decisions should be made locally, yet our local decisions are made in the Manchester Airports Group headquarters, and my constituents have no purchase on the decision-making systems of Manchester Airports Group and Nottingham East Midlands airport, any more than do the constituents of the hon. Member for North-West Leicestershire (David Taylor) or those of the hon. Member for South Derbyshire (Mr. Todd), whose constituencies are geographically much closer to the offending airport than mine.
	I too would like to have a reasonable dialogue. However, I discovered last week at the Conservative party conference in BlackpoolI discovered quite a few things therethat, according to a county councillor from Derbyshire, the management of Nottingham East Midlands airport hold the view that I, the Member for Harborough, am what is called a pain in the posterior. I am not sure whether that is a sensible way to describe a Member of Parliament who is doing his job. It may be trueperhaps they have been looking at my posteriorbut it disturbed me that the level of dialogue by the airport management has reached the stage where they personally abuse Members of Parliament going about their constitutional duty.

Julian Brazier: My hon. and learned Friend is making a characteristically clear and important point. I urge him to join us when we debate new clause 7, because he has just summarised in a single sentence the problem with giving consultative committees to the local authority in which the airport is located.

Edward Garnier: Since I have accurately described in one sentence what my hon. Friend was going to say on new clause 7, I probably do not need to participate.
	The so-called independent consultative committee that is supposed to monitor the activities of Nottingham East Midlands airport is staffed by a chairman who is paid by the airport. That is fair enoughhe is entitled to his salarybut I am not sure how independent that makes either him or the consultative committee. Why it is called consultative I have no ideait has never consulted anybody in my constituency and draws its membership from a very local base.

David Taylor: Would the hon. and learned Gentleman be surprised to know that on several occasions the ICC has declined requests from me and, I believe, from my hon. Friend the Member for South Derbyshire, for an opportunity during at least one of its quarterly meetings for Members of Parliament to contribute and report back? On every occasion, that suggestion has been kicked into the long grass at the end of the runway.

Edward Garnier: I can bring the hon. Gentleman good news. Perhaps because I am a pain in the posterior, Mr. Barry Wyman, the chairman of the independent consultative committee, has condescended to come to the House of Commons to meet me, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for South Derbyshire will join me.

Mark Todd: I see him all the time.

Edward Garnier: Well, the hon. Gentleman will have another chanceI do not know whether to commiserate with him or congratulate him. In any event, the serious point is that Mr. Wyman is very graciously coming to the House of Commons, and I hope that we will have a fruitful and adult discussion. I certainly will not call him anything other than Mr. Wyman.
	New clause 4 would provide an opportunity to signal our concern that these airports are unpoliced, unregulated and misbehaving. If they wish to act as useful economic engines within our regionsI support thatthey must behave like good neighbours. If airports were factories chucking out noxious fumes or firms that ran freight lorries through our villages all night, somebody would complain about it, but they, the Government and the Civil Aviation Authority say that it is all very modern and wonderful and they should be allowed to carry on unhindered. Simply because these trucks have wings and are in the sky, they think that we should not be bothered about it, but I am afraid that my constituents are. What bothers me even more is the spin that airports engage in to bamboozle the Government and the general public into thinking that they are doing a good thing. They are doing some good things, and if they stuck to the facts about them we might be a little more satisfied with what they are up to.
	Let me read some gobbets from a press release issued by Nottingham East Midlands airport, headlined, Opinion poll confirms support for airport. It has apparently got MORII make no complaint about that respected organisationto interview 1,562 people in the NEMA area. That constitutes 0.1 per cent. of the 1.5 million people who live in the east midlands, although that may not damage the scientific validity of its questioning. One paragraph states:
	The convenience of having an airport nearby for holiday and business flights was the main advantage cited by 61 per cent. of all residents, including those surveyed in East Leicestershire
	where my constituency is situated, 20 to 50 miles away from Nottingham East Midlands airport. It goes on to say, through Penny CoatesI have met her; she is a very nice woman who is co-operative and friendly and wishes to do her best for her airport and for the people affected by the noise, filth and fumes that are caused by its activitiesthat
	The results of this opinion poll demonstrate that there is much more support for NEMA than may be generally realised, particularly amongst those living closest to the Airport. Nevertheless, we are not complacent about the need for us to do more to minimise the impact of our operations and to improve our communications with surrounding communities. The views contained in the survey will prove very useful in shaping our future policies.
	That is all very well. However, when, in that sad way of Members of Parliament, I was whizzing through some websites, I came across a press release issued by Birmingham international airport on 28 September 2001. Funnily enough, one of the findings of the MORI poll that Birmingham international airport had conducted in 2001 was:
	By far the most significant advantage associated with the Airport was found to be the convenience of having it nearby. Residents recognised the economic factors linked to the presence of the Airport, mentioning job creation, new business attracted by the Airport, and the boost to the local economy.
	It also said:
	In terms of disadvantages, noise and pollution were the most common complaints. However, on balance, the advantages appear to outweigh the disadvantages.
	Luckily, the managing director of the airport, Mr. Brian Summers, could be quoted as saying:
	The results of this opinion poll are extremely gratifying and are a validation of the continuing dialogue with our local community. The views contained in this survey will be useful in shaping our future policies.
	I do not know, Mr. Deputy Speaker, whether you noticed any similarity between the wording of the October 2005 press release from Nottingham east midlands airport and that of the 2001 press release from Birmingham. The managing director continues:
	We will not be complacent in any way and wish to build on our track record of listening and responding.
	I do not know whether the similarity is a coincidence or can be explained by the fact that the press officer for Birmingham is now the press officer for Nottingham. Perhaps it is simply an example of serendipity, with which we are occasionally blessed. However, there is huge cynicism

Graham Stringer: Rubbish.

Edward Garnier: I know that the hon. Member for Manchester airport is keen to support his Manchester airport group and that is fair enough; he is right to do so. However, we are suspicious of the attitude that the airports, especially Nottingham airport, take towards the complaining member of the public, let alone the complaining Member of Parliament. I may be a pain in the posterior but I am doing what I am paid and elected to do. I shall go on being a pain in the posterior until the management of Nottingham East Midlands airport realises that there are a public out there with whom it has to treat if it misbehaves, abuses people, throws filth all over our rural areas and does not understand that ambient noise in the city is different from the ambient noise in the country, and that if one flies an aeroplane every 90 seconds over east Leicestershire at 4,000, 5,000, 6,000, 7,000 and 8,000 ft at night, people will be woken up.
	I live in both rural Leicestershire and the centre of London. Flights go over my house in Stockwell every night and throughout the day, but I do not notice them because there is so much other ambient noise in my street and area. However, in rural areas in Leicestershire, including North-West Leicestershire, and in South Derbyshire, there is little ambient noise. It is therefore no good people saying, It's high time you took your share of the noise. We are complaining about relative, not absolute noise.

David Taylor: The hon. and learned Gentleman is perhaps a little unfair to the newly appointed press officer. We have criticised airports for lack of an environmental perspective, but the appointment is an attempt at recycling. Earlier, he contrasted the Government's approach with earlier Conservative approaches. Would he be surprised to learn that a Conservative Secretary of State for the EnvironmentI believe that it was Tom King, who was then Member of Parliament for Bridgwaterdeclined to include conditions on planning permission for a runway extension to east midlands airport? That has been the root of all our problems in the subsequent 15 or 20 years.

Edward Garnier: I have to answer for all sorts of things, but not for decisions made by Ministers before I became a Member of Parliament. However, I take the point and we can make such jokes.

Mark Todd: I want to focus on a point that I raised earlier and that I believe that the hon. and learned Gentleman made during exchanges on Second Reading. It dealt with anxiety about the shape of the amendments. Given that I pointed out a flaw in the amendment that my hon. Friend the Member for North-West Leicestershire (David Taylor) tabled, I do not believe that there is an amendment that proposes a framework of objective analysis and judgment of an airport's proposals for self-regulation and any penalty scheme that it imposes. What are his thoughts on that?

Edward Garnier: I agree with the hon. Gentleman and I believe that my hon. Friend the Member for Putney (Justine Greening) made a similar point. I want the argument to proceed rationally, sensibly and relatively good-humouredly, but it is difficult when getting facts out of the airport is harder than drawing teeth. When it answers letters, the replies do not entirely fit the questions that one has put. There may be all sorts of good reasons for that.
	I share the hon. Gentleman's concerns, however. I want the airport to thrive but in way that is not antisocial. I want it to thrive in a way that allows it to make a profit and to expand but which is also sympathetic to the concerns not only of the people who live within the 10-mile radius. By local, the Government mean within 10 or 12 miles of an airport. People who live 20 to 50 miles away are not considered local and therefore have no leverage on the decisions that affect them. I agree with the hon. Gentleman and I wish that I could get the Government to persuade the airport company and the Civil Aviation Authority to be as reasonable as he is. If that were possible, we would have a happier set of residents in Leicestershire.

John McDonnell: I shall speak about the amendments to which my name is attached and in support of amendment No. 21 and I would like to deal with them in order of significance. Amendments Nos. 1 and 21 are the most significant.
	I want to begin by continuing the recent line of discussion in our debate. Every time we have an aviation debate, Members are classified either as modernising aviators or luddites and I want to reach an understanding of our shared objectives for the Bill and the overall thrust of aviation policy. We all want a thriving aviation industry that provides efficient air transport and employment for our constituents and has minimal impact on the global and local environments. However, in recent years, members of all parties have gone further. We want a sustainable aviation industry and to use modern methods as best we can to achieve that. They include new technology, new methods of measurement and so on. We also want the airports to be good neighbours where they are located, cherishing the environment and the quality of life of residents in the vicinity.
	Successive Governments have stated those objectives in recent periods. There is no more coherent statement of them than that in the recent White Paper on the future of the aviation industry. My understanding of clause 2(2) is that the Government intend to provide themselves with a strengthened tool with which to achieve the objectives for control of noise and, elsewhere in the Bill, emissions. Those are the two most significant environmental impacts of airports.
	The argument, as I heard it on Second Reading and read it in the Committee proceedings, is that the method for controlling the impact of airports in disbenefits to my constituents and others is currently too crude and provides no incentive for airport operators to reduce the impact. As I understand it, the intention is to retain the power to impose overall limits on movements but to broaden it to enable the Secretary of State to control noise by noise quotas and contours. It sounds rational and the Government's approach would be viewed as an acceptable modernisation. The problem is that any method that we propose must command the confidence of, most of all, the people whom we seek to protect. In all the discussions and consultations that have taken place in my constituency and throughout London, especially in relation to Heathrow, it is clear that there is no confidence in the Government's proposals in the Bill. We should listen to the people most at risk. Perhaps the lack of confidence is due to the way in which our constituents have been treated in the past.
	I do not think that people have been treated as brutally in any major infrastructure development in this country over the past two centuries as they have by the aviation industry. It started with the clearance of Heathrow village and has gone on to involve the imposition of five terminals on my constituency. At each stage, at each inquiry that has taken place, and in virtually every debate on the issue in the House, we have heard the aviation industry, Ministers, civil servants and experts giving us their judgment, according to their expertise, on the limited impact of these developments on my constituents and on Londoners in general. On each occasion, these have turned out to be wild misjudgments, underestimations and, some believe, a tissue of lies. It is on that basis that people no longer have confidence in the proposals being put forward.

David Taylor: Does my hon. Friend agree that what the Government have said has underpinned their approach to aviation expansion? They say that they are moving away from a predict and provide approach, but in what significant way is the present strategy different from that approach, which has produced such appalling results in certain areas of the economy and the environment in the past?

John McDonnell: On the evidence of the past 40 years, and on the evidence produced in the recent discussions on terminal 5, there is no sign of any shift away from predict and provide. In fact, the suspicion is that the Bill represents a change in legislation that will greatly facilitate the continuation and expansion of that policy. It is no wonder, therefore, that people in my constituency and elsewhere are sceptical about the proposals in it.
	The Government have argued that the control of air movements could still be a tool of control under the new regime. However, we should listen to the victims, the people who are already suffering, rather than to the polluters. Why should people believe BAA, the same company that promised my constituents in writing, during the terminal 5 inquiry, that it would not promote or seek a third runway? Within months of terminal 5 receiving approval, the company was lobbying the Government, and is still doing so, for a third runway, which would decimate the communities in my constituency. It now admits that 700 houses would have to go, that there could be a new terminal, and that 4,000 homes could be affected. This could involve a forced migration of nearly 10,000 people. Such a migration has not been seen since the Scottish clearances.
	Why should people believe Secretaries of State? Time after time, after an inquiry has made a decision, successive Secretaries of State from Lord Tebbit onwards have reverted to continuing the policy of predict and provide, and to imposing more and more terminals on my constituency.

Jeremy Wright: My constituents are affected by a much smaller airport than Heathrow, but I agree wholeheartedly with a great deal of what the hon. Gentleman has said. Is not one of the main reasons why neither his constituents nor mine trust the Government's proposed regime adequately to address their needs the fact that the Government are not really committed to reducing decibel levels to a point at which people will not be disturbed? That is why people feel the need to retain a limit on aircraft movements, and why they will not accept a noise substitute.

John McDonnell: The issue is more profound than that. It is about Government policy making on the future of aviation over half a century, which has been dominated by the aviation industry itself, with no countervailing factors limiting Government discretion, either from communities or environmentalists. That has been our problem throughout that period.
	Our present concern in London and around Heathrow is that the Bill will afford the opportunity to lift the cap on air traffic movements that was placed on Heathrow by the terminal 5 inquiry. That cap was set as a condition of the approval of the terminal 5 project by the planning inspector, and it was solemnly endorsed on the Floor of the House, with assurances by the then Secretary of State for Transport to all of us who represent constituencies around Heathrow. It was the one sop, the one thing that we were given to take back to our constituents to say that at least there was light at the end of the tunnel following that terrible inquiry that allowed terminal 5 to go ahead and introduced the risk of a third runway. The Bill will allow the Secretary of State the opportunity to lift the cap and to undermine the basis of that five-year inquiry and the conclusions that it reached.
	The value for my constituents of limits on aircraft movements is that they are readily understandable. Their simplicity inspires some level of confidence in Government decision making, and they are readily measurable. They therefore give further reassurance that the Government are abiding by some of the commitments that they have made. Noise quotas engender a lack of clarity. Their measurability is challengeable. There are differing definitions of noise, as we have heard at length today and throughout the debates on this issue. There are different assessments of its impact on people's lives, and they open up a vista of dispute. We cannot agree on what is to be measured, how it is to be measured, or even who should be the measurer. That lack of clarity will undermine any confidence that people might have in the Government's long-term aviation policy. It will result in a lack of confidence.
	Movement controls do not only control noise. They also limit the general disruption caused by aircraft activity, at night and at other times, in the local area. Even the quieter planes cause disruption involving lights, ground operations and, for communities living near Heathrow, the traffic generated by those flights. Increasing the number of movements, no matter how much quieter the planes are, will not overcome but increase that type of disruption.
	I do not want to return to the same old argument that people who oppose proposals such as those in the Bill are all luddites who oppose the aviation industry. My constituents also work at Heathrow, but we are looking for some form of balanced development. The only agency that can provide us with the protection that can achieve that is the Government. There are alternative ways forward.

David Taylor: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for restating the economic and social case for airports, be they large ones such as Heathrow or medium-large ones such as Nottingham East Midlands airport, which generates 7,500 jobs that are very welcome in the regional economy. Does he agree, however, that the problem is that only a relatively small proportion of the people who work at an airport and in the aviation-linked industries actually live around the airport or under its flight paths? Most are remote; they bus in or drive to work, but in general they do not suffer the adverse environmental impact of their operations.

John McDonnell: There is a much wider debate to be had about the benefits and disbenefits of airports in regard to the environment and the economy. However, the point that I was trying to make was that individual aircraft movements generate more than just noise. They generate the movement of people travelling into work at particular times. They also generate the movement of cars and lorries and all sorts of other activities associated with that aircraft movement, not just aeroplane noise.

Alan Keen: Does my hon. Friend acknowledge that three local Members of Parliamentincluding myself and one who no longer sits in Parliamentwho had never opposed the expansion of Heathrow within its present boundaries, including the proposal for terminal 5, have now changed their views? My hon. Friend mentioned balance; we felt that the balance had gone too far in one direction. Much as we support the air transport industry, we now feel that the environmental damage has gone past a certain point.

John McDonnell: My hon. Friend reminds me of the history of the debate on terminal 5. He and other Members who supported terminal 5 based their case on the economic benefits, as well as on the assurances that had been given that enough was enough and that there would be a cap on flight movements as a result of the terminal 5 agreement. We shall now have to go back to our constituents and tell them that the Bill might empower the removal of that cap. That is how we undermine confidence not simply in decisions such as this but in representative government overall. Within only a few years, the assurances that we gave our constituents are being undermined by the measure.
	There is another way forward and I shall sum it up briefly. It is to maintain and extend the use of air movements as the basic tool for controlling airport development and noise and emissions impact and to require the Secretary of State to limit air movements from individual airports. Below those limits, we can encourage quieter aircraft by additional noise controls on individual planes and also by awarding incentives through the allocation of landing slots to types of plane and companies that perform well in reducing noise and emissions.
	The Government's proposals will result in the creeping up of the number of flights at Heathrow and elsewhere. There will be no improvement in noise or emission controls and there will, yet again, be a betrayal of the communities surrounding Heathrow.
	New clause 6 would place a duty on the Secretary of State to act in providing insulation protection to constituents on whom aircraft noise had an impact. The Secretary of State already has power under the Land Compensation Act 1973 to introduce legislation on noise insulation, yet no regulations have been enacted. We are asking for a limit, so that a year after the Bill is enacted the Secretary of State would act on that important matter. It is another way of reassuring people that the Government are on their side and are trying to protect their interests rather than merely driving through a growth in aviation no matter what the environmental and social impact may be.

Tom Brake: The amendments in the group suggest that, in relation to noise and emissions, the Government have not quite got the Bill right. I shall focus mainly on amendment No. 1 and if, Mr. Deputy Speaker, you are minded to allow a vote on it, we shall support the Conservatives. The amendment is the key provision in the group.
	As other Members have said, the Bill in its current format would enable the Secretary of State to remove the movements element of noise control and rely simply on a noise quota measure. The Government have given no indication of the criteria to be used by the Secretary of State in his decision to use those powers and there are no safeguards, such as a requirement to consult or to take into consideration other interests. The Government are attempting to establish the principle that by setting a maximum noise level, rather than a limit on the number of flights for an airport, airlines will have an incentive to reduce noise levels to increase the number of flights that they can operate. Although reducing the noise level is an admirable target, there are several reasons for objecting to the Government's proposals, and many Members have already set them out.
	By maintaining a movement limit on the number of flights, the aviation industry has an incentive to maximise its use of current capacity. The Liberal Democrats support that. As many Members know, there is a link between the level of noise from aircraft and the level of emissions, but quieter aircraft do not necessarily equate to cleaner aircraft. There should be consideration of the environmental impact of moving towards quieter aircraft at the expense of increased emissions. Many Members have referred to the fact that using Leq as a measurement of sound is not responsive to changes in the number of flights, so communities have serious doubts about its appropriateness. Amendment No. 1 is significant and we shall support it.
	I have a few brief comments on some of the other amendments and new clauses in the group. New clause 4 calls for the establishment of a commercial flights officer. I understand the purpose of the proposal, although it seems strange for the Conservative party to be setting up a quango. With all the infrastructure that would necessarily surround it, it may be more appropriate or feasible, and might reduce costs, to use the CAA to achieve the same ends.

Julian Brazier: The arrangement would not involve many people. The essential problem is that there are four or five different players in the field, of whom the CAA is one. We need an office that is deliberately kept small, through the filter that only MPs can pass on complaints to keep the work load down, and which could look across the work of all those bodies. That would be the aim, but I thank the hon. Gentleman for his supportive comments earlier.

Tom Brake: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. He, like me, will know that small departments have a tendency to grow, so he would want to monitor that if his proposal turned into something concrete.

Lembit �pik: Does my hon. Friend agree that, as he has inferred, the CAA is the right organisation to do that? Is he aware that, by and large, when push comes to shove, for example in an air proximity incident, not only the CAA but the pilots involved tend to co-operate? I am a bit surprised that Members had such great difficulty in securing that type of information from what I have found a fairly effective system.

Tom Brake: I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. The point that he and I are making, and indeed the point that the Conservative Opposition may be making, is that the information needs to be in the public domain and readily available. If that can be done through the commercial flights officer that may be the appropriate route but if it can be achieved through an alternative route, such as the CAA, that may be a suitable response.
	I am sympathetic to the points that have been made about new clause 6, but more detail is required in the provision to make clear precisely what is being proposed on insulation for buildings. It includes the interesting phrase that the Secretary of State or the responsible authorities should
	insulate buildings against noise caused, or expected to be caused, by the use of aerodromes.
	While I understand the reasons for including that phrase, over what time scale would the provision operate? Over what time scale would the Secretary of State and the responsible authorities need to plan for an increase in noise? The new clause refers to buildings, but is not as specific as it might be in terms of the buildings to which it should apply.
	Amendment No. 8 is a Conservative proposal that we shall support strongly. It provides that an annual report should be produced
	publishing annual figures for pollution and noise levels,
	and, more significantly, in subsection (b), publishing
	a statement of intent as to what levels of emissions and noise can be expected for the following twelve month period.
	That is an extremely important point. We need to publish figures on the amount of noise and pollution. We must then set targets and monitor them to ensure that they are met in future years, so that the users of a particular airport have a clear signal about where that airport is going.
	We shall certainly support several amendments in the group. There are some interesting proposals that need further work and there may be an opportunity in another place for the detail to be fleshed out. However, if there is a vote on amendment No. 1, we shall certainly support the Conservatives in the Division Lobby.

Graham Stringer: I had not intended to speak on the Bill once I saw that the amendments dealing with support for stranded air travellers had not been pursued, but the representations that I have heard from Opposition Members and one or two contributions from Labour Members bear no relationship whatever to the debates and discussions that we had in Committee. From the comments that have been made today, I simply do not recognise the Bill that we went through line by line in Committee.
	I should like to deal with some of those points, but first I want to take up a point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell), whom I certainly would not accuse of being a luddite. He is right to say that there must be a balance between the economy and the environment, but he is in error about the facts when he says that we need Government intervention and not for the aviation industry to get its own way. There are two points to make on that. First, the aviation industry and the Government were one and the same creaturethey were indivisibleuntil about 16 years ago, when BA, BAA and some airports were privatised.
	Secondly, my hon. Friend makes the point that there has been a policy of predict and provide. I do not mean this in a pejorative way at all, but the only hon. Members that I have previously heard claim that the Government have a predict and provide policy have been from the Liberal Democrat party. Quite clearly, there has not been a predict and provide policy in aviation. Had there been such a policy, there would be much more capacity in both the south-east and the rest of the country. Part of the aviation industry has been restrained in its growth, and the Government have made it clear in the White Paper that such things are down to commercial decisions, not to any predict and provide approach by them.

Peter Ainsworth: I am extremely grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way, particularly as I have just returned to the Chamber and missed his opening remarks. As a matter of fact, the Environmental Audit Committee has produced more than one report accusing the Government of taking a predict and provide approach towards aviation. Of course, that Committee has a Labour majority.

Graham Stringer: I recognise that that Committee has produced those reports. I have made comments in the Chamber about them, and as my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington suggests in talking about predict and provide, they are in error in their analysis of the aviation industry's history.
	I shall finish talking about my hon. Friend's contribution by agreeing with him that promises have been made but not kept in the aviation industry. That has been a real mistake. Sometimes the promises have been made the wrong way and been kept, and that must be recognised. The whole country would have benefited if there had been no agreement, whenever it was made, to stop a second runway being built at Gatwick until 2017. So some damaging agreements have been made and kept. I recognise that, at each phase in the development of Heathrow, people have said, No more, but they were mistaken in doing so, partly because the real economic balance, not just for the people who live around the airport but for the whole United Kingdom, is to maintain Heathrow as one of the premier airports in the world. Restricting it in the way that it has been restricted is causing it to lose that position in the world economy day by day.

John McDonnell: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for agreeing with my analysis of Heathrow's history so far, but I want to give another example of why, even today, there is yet again a sense of betrayal in my community: BAA did not argue at the terminal 5 inquiry for a third runway, but when it promoted a third runway, it informed us after the event that it is after a sixth terminal. At what stage do we say that those people can never tell the truth?

Graham Stringer: It has been a mistake to believe that we could stay at the forefront of the aviation industry and say that Heathrow did not need a third runway. I have always been very clear about that. I agreed with my hon. Friend's analysis previously. My understanding of BAA's position is that it has left it up to the Government to say where the extra runways should go. I am getting off the pointI shall get back on to itbut that is an argument for breaking up BAA, and I know that you will not let me go down that path, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Alan Keen: Does my hon. Friend agree that the continual expansion of Heathrow is a short-term measure and bad planning and bad management, and that it would be much better if the industry realised that it is impossible to keep on expanding Heathrow, given the great environmental damage involved and the polluter pays principle, which is being extended throughout the world? Would it not be better for the airline industry to realise that a new airport is needed?

Graham Stringer: I do not agree with my hon. Friend on that point. Moving away from Heathrow would represent an incredible cost to the country; it simply will not happen.

Susan Kramer: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Graham Stringer: I really must move on, because I want to talk about amendment No. 1 and new clause 4. I listened very carefully to the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Duncan) and the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood), and I was astonished because they both have a reputation for supporting free markets and deregulation, but they were arguing in new clause 4 for the creation of an extra regulatory body and stricter regulation of air traffic movements. Neither of them defined whether the problem was increasing or decreasingnot once.
	The hon. Gentleman said that the problem is worse and that there is increasing concern, but the reality of the past 20 or 30 years is that the problem with noise is decreasing. It is extraordinary to ask for extra regulation on a decreasing problemI can think of no precedent for the Conservative party adopting such a position. In support of amendment No. 1, hon. Members said that a large number of quieter aeroplanes going over a house is worse than one noisy aeroplane going over. If anyone who has ever lived under a flight path compared a BAC-111 or a DC9 with a current Boeing 777, they would want 50 Boeing 777s going over in the morning rather than one DC9, because DC9s are so much noisier. That is a matter of common experience and fact.

Julian Brazier: The Conservative party is against the proliferation of petty regulation, but when certain things have needed regulation, we have taken action. Hon. Members need look no further than the first measure to regulate clean airthe Clean Air Act 1956which came from a Conservative Government and from which many of the considerations on NOx and CO 2 in the Bill ultimately stem.

Graham Stringer: I do not think that we should continue along the path of the Clean Air Act 1956, but I understand that that was taken through the House as a private Member's Bill by a Conservative Member, not by a Conservative Government. My point is very simply that the Conservative party is asking for extra regulation when the problem is decreasing, not increasing, unlike in the 1950s and 1960s, when the problem of air pollution was increasing.

Adam Afriyie: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Graham Stringer: I have given way a lot, but I will give way to the hon. Gentleman. I must then try to make some progress.

Adam Afriyie: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his generosity; I appreciate that he has been intervened on many times.
	The reason why the Conservatives are encouraging the creation of this new officer's post is that we think that people fear an increasing threat and problem with increasing air traffic, certainly at Heathrow and throughout the country. That is why we propose monitoring the number of flights. From my perspective in the Windsor constituency, I have been lobbied on many occasions, and quite vociferously over the weekend, because of the worry about the changes that we are debating and whether there is a backdoor route for more flights. If there is no intention to allow more flights or to abandon aircraft movement limits, why introduce these subtle changes, which seem to open that avenue? We are justified in arguing that, if the Bill is passed in its current form, there should be some monitoring of what actually happens.

Graham Stringer: The hon. Gentleman brings me nicely to my next point about whether the argument made by the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton that there is real concern about absolute noise has a foundation. The hon. Member for Windsor (Adam Afriyie) has repeated that point, but I think that the concern about noise and the aviation industry is getting less, as demonstrated by most of the real assessments of public opinion, as opposed to the fantasies that we have heard suggesting that the situation is getting worse.
	Noise is an intense problem for a number of people; I do not want to belittle it. However, the problem is intense for a decreasing number of people. Conservative Members are shaking their heads, but one can go to parts of London and Greater Manchester where noise pollution is no longer the real problem that it used to be. As aircraft have got quieter and the noise footprint has shrunk, there is less of a problem.

Susan Kramer: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Graham Stringer: I have given way several times, and I want to make progress.
	Most of my experience of balancing the economic and environmental interests of the community has come from being responsible for Manchester airport, primarily during the planning process and the decisions on the second runway there. Because we were concerned to talk to the local community and to find out whether there was support for the proposal, we went out to ask people. We carried out extensive opinion polls to consult many more people than are normally interviewed in a straightforward political opinion poll. From memory, I think that the samples were 3,000 and 5,000, which are huge numbers.
	Manchester airport is in the Wythenshawe area of the city and we found that there was 80 per cent. support for the proposal in the area that sits next to the end of the runway. Wythenshawe is primarily, if not totally, a council estate and, unlike what someone said earlier, the people there saw the benefits of the jobs created as well as an improving environment. At the other end of the runway lies Styal, which is a much more affluent village in Cheshire where virtually every window displayed a Stop the second runway sticker. However, when we interviewed people individually, we found that a small majority was in favour of the runway because they could see the economic benefits. They or their families worked at and used the airport, so the airport received terrific support.
	Interestingly, the opinion poll for East Midlands airport to which the hon. and learned Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier) referred and which was published today tells a similar story. There is majority support for the economic benefits of the airport, and some concern about the environment. However, overall, people see that the benefits outweigh the disbenefits. The figures for East Midlands airport are not as good as they should be, and my hon. Friend the Member for North-West Leicestershire (David Taylor) and others have made the point that the consultation in the past two or three years between the airport, hon. Members and the public has not been as good as it should have been. I would have expected the figures to be higher, but they are still positive because people see the benefits.
	The hon. and learned Member for Harborough said that a similar opinion poll had been used by Birmingham airport and produced by the same person, and suggested that this was cynical distortion of the facts, or words to that effect. That may be the result of laziness or plagiarism, but an official reporting as best as he can the results of an opinion poll is not cynical. He probably found a formula that was accurate and used it a second time. There is no evidence to suggest that the figures from that opinion poll have been distorted.
	The next argument that the hon. and learned Member for Harborough and the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton used was that noise is somehow more of a problem if one lives in the countryside. I suppose hon. Members have their own opinions about that, but I have always lived in a city and I find the countryside an extraordinarily noisy place. It is full of foxes, owls and other creatures that keep one awake at night. I do not necessarily share the assessment that the countryside is quiet; I always sleep more easily in an urban environment.
	Nottingham East Midlands airport has carried out, at the request of the constituents of the hon. and learned Member for Harborough, a study in Great Glen, a village that I have never been to. Over 24 hoursnight and daythe flight noise of every aeroplane was recorded and, in that period, it was found that only three aeroplanes created noise that was above the ambient noise level. I accept that noise is a complicated issue, but that seems to suggest that there is no evidence for Conservative Members' argument that there is a real problem.
	I represent an urban constituency and I do not think it fair to draw the conclusion that aeroplanes should go only over populated areas and not over the countryside. In the same opinion poll carried out by Nottingham East Midlands airport, 64 per cent. of those polled thought what seems to be the common-sense thing to think: that aeroplanes should avoid populated areas. If, at a public meeting, one asks whether an aeroplane should fly over a lot of people or a few people and whether the majority or the minority should be more greatly inconvenienced, most people would say the minority, even if one takes account of the economic benefits. Unfortunately, the hon. and learned Member for Harborough comes to the exact opposite conclusion.

Lembit �pik: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the issue is more complicated than is sometimes made out? I fully accept that some constituents and some Members, including some in my own party, suffer, but aircraft are also very audible in constituencies such as mine. Aircraft flying at 10,000 ft and heading to Manchester 70 miles away can be heard. If we begin to make comparisons, we must consider the background level of noise, which does not necessarily strengthen the case of some people who live relatively close to airports.

Graham Stringer: I do not think that the effect of noise can be assessed simply by a meter measuring decibels, but that is an indication of the level of the problem in Great Glen. That is the point that I was trying to make.
	I urge hon. Members to see through the argument that the problem is increasing as we have not heard any evidence today to suggest that it is. The Conservatives take the extraordinary position of asking for extra regulation, so I support the Government and ask the House to reject the new clauses and amendments.

John Randall: I shall be extremely brief, because I sense a certain restlessness in the Chamber and a mood to get on to listening to the Minister and dealing with other matters. I have a vested interest in the last group of amendments, so it is in my interests to keep my speech brief. All I want to do is support my hon. Friends and particularly my neighbour, the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell), in his comments and in his new clause 6, to which I have attached my name. As he said, my constituents suffer from a crisis of confidence in the aviation industry.
	As the hon. Members for Manchester, Blackley (Graham Stringer) and for Crawley (Laura Moffatt) pointed out, there are, of course, economic benefits, but the patience of my constituents is being increasingly strained. That is why, for the first time, many people who have been highly supportive of the aviation industry locally have now said that enough is enough. They are worried, as am I, that there is a hidden motive behind the measures. Is there a reason why we should get rid of the specific number of night flights allowed, which would create the possibility of the number of such flights being increased? Is there an economic need to do that? Has the industry asked the Government to increase the number of night flights? We want those questions answered. Unfortunately, the aviation industry has cried wolf on occasions. The hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington cited the examples of the terminal 5 inquiry and the fact that there was not going to be a third runway and then no sixth terminal.

David Taylor: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would agree that night noise from the heavens can make airports neighbours from hell. However, there has been relatively little academic analysis of the economic benefits of night flights. The aviation industry often asserts that they are crucial and an important economic driver, but precious little evidence has been cited in support of that. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it is high time that an independent organisation conducted research along those lines?

John Randall: I take great pleasure in agreeing with the hon. Gentleman wholeheartedly. Such information would be crucial to the House before undertaking the changes that we are discussing.
	I urge hon. Members to support new clause 6. If the Bill is implemented, my constituents and those of many hon. Members will deserve mitigation. The wording of new clause 6 might not be correct, and I know that the Government do not like to agree to any amendments except their ownthat is the way of the world. However, they are honour bound to provide in legislation for mitigation of noise reduction for my constituents.

John Horam: I shall be brief. I could have made my remarks by intervening during the speech of the hon. Member for Manchester, Blackley (Graham Stringer), but he had to cope with a large number of interventions and I did not want to disrupt his speech any more than was necessary. None the less, I was astonished when he said that noise was lessening. Biggin Hill airport, the famous airfield from which many of the few flew in the second world war, is in my constituency. It now deals largely not with scheduled flights, but executive flights and so forth. Although I accept that many individual aeroplanes are much quieter than they were, we must consider the sheer multiplicity and expansion of ordinary flights to small airports such as Biggin Hill.
	Many flights are taking place on the shoulder of the times at which they are allowed to take place. Many flights requiring special permission are undertaken by the Ministry of Defence. More flights take place at a lower level than they used to, with flights over Biggin Hill being affected by the change to the pattern of flights over Heathrow. All those factors mean that my constituents have experienced a considerable increase in the noise around such a typical small airfield.
	My Front-Bench colleagues have made the important point that there is inadequate monitoring, so we simply do not know enough about the facts of noiseI accept that the hon. Member for Manchester, Blackley made this point. There are doubts about who should take responsibility for monitoring noise at Biggin Hill. Should it be the local authority or the airport company? Monitoring inevitably does not take place with the frequency that ordinary people and residents are entitled to expect. Additionally, they cannot be confident in such monitoring. On those grounds alone, my hon. Friends would be absolutely right to press new clause 4 to a Division.

Karen Buck: The amendments, like the many that we debated in Committee, reflect an overall concern about how the Government's policies on airport development, including airspace change and the mitigation of aircraft noise and emissions, play out in practice.
	As everyone in the Chamber knows, the purpose of the Future of Air Transport White Paper was to set out a strategic framework for the development of air travel in the United Kingdom, looking ahead to 2030. That forward planning was intended, in part, to give people living near to airports some clarity about how their local circumstances might change in future and to enable planning to deal with the environmental impacts of air transport. We do not deny that such impacts exist, although advances in technology have delivered quieter aircraft and noise abatement operational processes, such as continuous descent approach, have been developed. Both those points came out strongly from the characteristically excellent speeches made by my hon. Friends the Members for Manchester, Blackley (Graham Stringer) and for Crawley (Laura Moffatt). Night noise and daytime contours have been maintained, or even reduced, at some major airports, despite the growth in movement numbers. I hope that we all realise that such growth is not just about an abstract of economic benefit, but about real jobs and wealth and maintaining the UK's competitiveness.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) made a good point when he rightly advised us to end the false division between those who support a healthy aviation industry and those who are concerned with sustainability. Everyone who is sensible should want to strike a proper balance between those objectives, even if there is sometimes disagreement among or within parties about how that would be best done. My concern with the way in which such debates play out in practice is more with individuals who understandably make points on behalf of their constituencies and are unwilling to consider the regional and national economic interest or to engage maturely in discussion about how best to deliver real improvements.

Julian Brazier: On striking that balance, I would be most grateful if the Minister would clarify which side of the argumentthe aviation industry or the environmentalistssupports the Government's view that Stansted should have the next expansion.

Karen Buck: With respect, we are not discussing the Future of Air Transport White Paper, but the Civil Aviation Bill. The White Paper set out the framework for airport expansion throughout the country, but I am not sure that this is the time or place to reopen that debate.
	I shall start what I think will be a fairly detailed contributionso detailed, in fact, that it will make the collected Proust look like a short storyby saying a little about Nottingham East Midlands airport because the concerns of hon. Members from in and around the area served by it have been at the forefront of our debates on Second Reading, in Committee and today. NEMA has been held up as an example of why the Government should not trust airport operators to deal with noise complaints themselves. However, I shall first discuss the general principles of new clause 4.
	I have some sympathy with the aim of identifying aircraft for the purpose of responding to noise complaints. I understand the frustration that people may feel when it is not possible to identify a plane that has disturbed them, although that is generally unlikely to be due to a lack of will on an airport's part. It might be helpful if I recap for hon. Members who were not Committee members the availability of flight data and where the data are held. There is no single comprehensive source of information and no complete record of all flights.
	Most large airports, such as the London airports and NEMA, operate a noise and track-keeping system. That is specific to the airport's movements and is usually limited to a range of approximately 25 miles. Complainants can call or write to an airport with details of the date and time when they were disturbed. The airport can then provide details, such as the height of the aircraft, its operator and its destination. As most commercial aircraft fly at their lowest, and are thus at their loudest, on approach and departure, most complaints relate to aircraft within an airport's noise and track-keeping system.
	There is a competitive market for air traffic control service provision at airports. National Air Traffic Services is responsible for providing en-route air traffic control for flights in corridors from 5,000 ft up to 24,500 ft, 20 miles from their arrival and departure airports. All air traffic control providers are responsible for providing that service for those flights that operate only in controlled airspace, which is made up of terminal control areas surrounding the major airports and airways that link the control areas.
	Air traffic control providers may retain radar records for 30 days to facilitate the investigation of incidents. It would take them some time to do individual checks if asked to do so, and they could only provide height information. If available, they might be able to say what the destination and point of departure had been, but they would not be able to identify the operator or aircraft type. It would be up to the person complaining to have sufficient information on the incident in question and to ask for the information promptly.
	However, flights in uncontrolled airspace are not compelled to receive an air traffic control service. Nor are they required to notify the flight for the purpose of receiving permission to fly in such airspace. Consequently, flight data are often not available for such flights. Nor is it easy to estimate aircraft heights accurately, even for trained observers. An aircraft that might be assumed to have come from a particular airport may have come from elsewhere and be flying much higher than the observer believes. It may seem to complainants that an airport does not try hard enough to identify the aircraft that disturbs them or is too quick to say that it is not one of theirs, but there is no guarantee that a central inquiry point, such as the commercial flights officer, would be any more successful or responsive.
	I recognise local concerns about aircraft noise in the area of NEMA, which is at the heart of the set of complaints. My DepartmentMinisters and officials alikeis ensuring that all reasonable action is taken by the airport and its operators to reduce noise at its source and to mitigate its effects. The airport is now fully committed to responding effectively. It knows that it needs to be a considerate neighbour to local residents. It is to undertake a comprehensive review of its complaints procedures; it is recruiting staff for a new customer relations department to improve the speed and quality of its handling of complaints; and it plans a new noise compensation scheme.
	Operational performance at NEMA has significantly improved, and track-keeping compliancethe extent to which departing aircraft keep to routes designed to minimise their noise impact on people belowis at almost 100 per cent.

David Taylor: The Minister is right to note that there have been attempts at improvement, and noise preferential routes have had an effect. However, is she aware that her predecessor, together with the airport, imposed the 10-point plan that is the framework within which the airport operates? The relevant local authorities and community groups in the area were not in favour and thought it a weak and relatively toothless document.

Karen Buck: I am aware of the 10-point plan and that not everyone is satisfied with it. I am extremely conscious that even now not everyone is happy with NEMA's performance, despite the improvements. We need to continue to bear down on it, to work with it and to ensure that the improvements continue.
	The continuous descent approach, which seeks to minimise the noise of arriving flights, is achieved by 70 per cent. of aircraft. However, NEMA is not complacent. It is aware that it has to keep driving for even better performance. It has indicated that it wishes to take advantage of the noise control powers proposed in clause 4 to take tougher local action to protect the noise environment. I do not doubt that it will.
	This year's master plan, due later this year, will recast NEMA's 10-point plan on noise amelioration, setting out details of its further plans to minimise noise impacts and to respond to community concerns. The results of a recently announced MORI poll, described by my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Blackley, clearly show majority support for the airport in its locality and that concern about its impact on noise centred on those areas affected by recent routeing changes. It is true that the airspace change at NEMA means that some people are overflown more frequently than before, and those people will, of course, be dissatisfied with that state of affairs, but I ask hon. Members to remember that overall the route changes have significantly reduced the number of people overflown at a height that is likely to cause disturbance.
	The airport is doing its best to engage with the local community. It operates an open-door policy to show its operations to those who are interested and to talk through their concerns. I urge any hon. Member who has spoken and who has not made a visit to contact the managing director of the airport. I look forward to meeting MPs in the vicinity later this week to discuss the issues.

Mark Todd: As a frequent visitor to the airport, I meet the authorities regularly. The Bill gives them powers to fine operators and to establish their own noise control environment without a process for auditing whether that is an appropriate scheme for noise control or for penalties. Why did the Government decide to evade any independent process and leave it entirely to any airport, not just NEMA, that is not designated?

Karen Buck: We reserved the right to designate airports and to intervene if they fail in their duty to bear down on noise and to act as good neighbours. However, as a starting pointthis is not a new position, but a longstanding policy of Governments of both political coloursit is for the local airport to work with its local partners to ensure that there is a local solution.
	In our White Paper The Future of Air Transport, the Government signalled their support for growth of NEMA strategic night freight business, but that was not unconditional. We said that it would need to be accompanied by stringent controls on night noise, in particular, and increasingly generous noise insulation and other mitigation measures. That remains our position.
	There have been calls to designate NEMA, as demonstrated in the last two interventions, by highlighting the number of night flights compared to those at the designated London airports, but it cannot be compared on an equal basis with the designated London airports. It serves a different market and the nature of operations is not the same. Nor should it be assumed that should the airport be designated there would be more stringent controls on noise or night flying than those already in place or planned by the airport operator itself.
	The provisions in clause 4, which, as I said, NEMA intends to make use of, will place beyond all doubt the power of airport operators to establish and enforce both noise abatement operational procedures and operating restrictions for their airports. Putting responsibility for those aspects of the balanced approach to addressing aircraft noise in the hands of airports rightly gives them the incentive to manage and respond to local pressures. It must be right that individual airports should lead in deciding what elements of the balanced approach best provide the right solution in the light of local circumstances.

Mark Todd: I want to get absolute clarity. My hon. Friend is saying that the only recourse is to turn to her for designation or to seek judicial review of the judgments that NEMA or any other airport might make on either its operating controls or its charging system for those who breach them. Is that correct?

Karen Buck: There is a range of different measuresthe relationship that the airport will have with its operators and local community through its consultative committee, and the powers of the Secretary of State to intervenebut the default position is that it is better for those airports to work out local solutions to local problems.
	Airports already take action to encourage and drive airlines to improve their operational noise performance. That has been working well. For example, more than 95 per cent. of flights at Manchester stick to noise preferential routes, and the percentage is even higher at Heathrow. Clearly, that has not happened by accident, but reflects the fact that airports are willing and able to work with airlines to improve their performance. Achieving adherence to noise preferential routes requires investment in procedures and training, which have a cost and time commitment associated with them.
	Monitoring and managing noise is a crucial part of the day-to-day operational business of airports. We expect them to pay careful attention to that and to manage their responsibility with suitable professionalism and integrity. They know that it is important to retain the faith and good will of local communities. The Government have confidence that the system works well and do not consider that the additional regulatory burden and cost associated with the establishment of a commercial flights officer would be a proportionate response to a situation in which airport operators are working as hard as possible to be considerate to their neighbours.

Justine Greening: Will the Minister give way?

Karen Buck: No. I have taken several interventions and have a number of points to work through.
	Under section 76 of the Civil Aviation Act 1982, an aircraft flying at a reasonable height and in accordance with the provisions of the air navigation order or the rules of the air cannot be subject to legal action for trespass or causing a nuisance. That important principle has been part of UK civil aviation law since the earliest days of commercial aviation, and it has been upheld by successive Governments. Even if a commercial flights officer were able to identify flights from the often limited information that members of the public could provide, further action against the operator of that flight could be taken only if it had not been following air traffic control instructionsassuming, of course, that it was in controlled airspace at the time. It therefore seems to me that the additional regulatory burden that the creation of a commercial flights officer would impose on air traffic control providers in particular would far outweigh whatever limited additional benefit would result from his office, given that this would not involve any powers of enforcement.
	I realise that that may sound unsympathetic. I understand the annoyance felt by members of the public when they are disturbed by aircraft noise, and their wish to know who has caused that disturbance, but I remain of the view that the right way to seek to achieve that is through the local airport, and that the industry should focus on keeping aircraft noise to a minimum and mitigating its effects.
	New clause 6 and amendment No. 17 relate to the issue of noise insulation. That will, I accept, be a matter of concern to those living close to our major airports, including Heathrow, although I think it only fair to point out that the noise environment around many of our airports has improved over time as new and quieter aircraft technologies have been introduced. Moreover, many people who have moved to the vicinity of airports in recent years will have done so with knowledge of the existing noise climate, and many of those properties will have benefited from previous insulation when noise levels were higher.

Lembit �pik: I agree with the Minister about the new clause. For clarification, does she agree that, as it has been phrased, it would apply to all aerodromes, even small licensed ones with no regular flights? Will she confirm that the tone of her comments indicates that she is looking at large commercial airports, and that the Government do not regard general aviation aerodromes, which are small and generally used for training and so forth, as the main issue in this debate?

Karen Buck: We are conscious of the fact that there could be problems in aerodromes of all kinds, but the principal focus is on licensed and major aerodromes.
	Ultimately, the Secretary of State has the power to require individual airports to provide acoustic insulation using his powers under sections 79 and 80 of the Civil Aviation Act, and indeed he has designated both Heathrow and Gatwick airports for this purpose. Currently though, noise insulation schemes are provided on a voluntary basis by airports, sometimes supported by local planning agreements. As stated in the White Paper, The Future of Air Transport, the Government wish to see a continuation of that voluntary approach, but in addition, for the larger UK airportsthose with more than 50,000 movements a yearwe wish to see specific measures adopted either as an adaptation of existing schemes or when new mitigation schemes are brought forward.

John McDonnell: I am grateful for the Minister's response, but the purpose of amendment No. 17 is to draw attention to the fact that the existing voluntary arrangements, particularly regarding blight and noise blight arising from BAA's proposals for the third runway, are dividing communities. One side of the street is designated and the other is not. One part of Longford, The Island, is not designated, but the top of the road is. There may now be time for the Government to intervene more directly in those voluntary arrangements.

Karen Buck: I hear what my hon. Friend says and I am happy to discuss the matter with him further.
	We expect relevant airport operators to offer households subject to high levels of noise assistance with the costs of relocating and to offer acoustic insulation to other noise-sensitive buildings such as schools and hospitals. We have also suggested that airports where those criteria may bite may wish to start noise contouring to check their current noise levels, where they do not already do so, so that they can apply the criteria accurately.
	As airports develop in future, we expect them to offer to purchase those properties suffering from both a high level of noise and a large increase in noise and to offer acoustic insulation to any residential property that suffers both from a medium to high level of noise and a large increase in noise. Those more generous provisions recognise that residents in such areas may have chosen to live there because they did not expect such development to take place.

Justine Greening: Will the hon. Lady tell us how the Government define medium to high noise? What decibel levels are used?

Karen Buck: I will not be drawn on specific decibel levels; we have a clear framework.

Alan Duncan: Why not? What is the level? Tell us.

Karen Buck: We know that high noise is 69 dB.

Richard Bacon: What about medium noise?

Karen Buck: It does not say here, so I cannot tell the House that figure. I will confirm the definition of medium noise. I think that I can safely say that it is below 69 dB.
	For the reasons I have given, I believe that we have a comprehensive set of policies in place to deal with noise insulation in a wide range of buildings, and a power of enforcement that we will use if voluntary measures do not prove sufficient. I do not believe that the new clause and amendment are necessary and I invite my hon. Friends not to press them.
	I understand that amendment No. 9, and the right of appeal to the Secretary of State against charges imposed using the powers in new section 38 that is inserted into the Bill by amendment No. 8, have been tabled in response to concerns on the part of the airline industry that at some future date they may be faced with unfair charges. However, in reality it seems unlikely to me that an airport would choose to alienate its customers by introducing new measures without reasonable notice, although clearly it has to balance this with the legitimate expectations of those living around the airport that measures will be introduced without undue delay. Any period of notice would inevitably need to reflect the complexity of the arrangements being introduced. If an airline felt that it was disadvantaged by the introduction of a charging regime at unreasonably short notice, the remedy of legal challenge would be open to it. I am sure that airports will have regard to International Civil Aviation Organisation guidance that noise-related charges should be non-discriminatory between users and should not be established at such levels as to be prohibitively high for the operation of certain aircraft.[Interruption.] It is technical stuff.
	Amendment No. 8 would require airports making charges using the powers in new section 38 of the 1982 Act to monitor their emissions and noise levels and publish the figures annually, and to publish their plans to reduce noise and pollution. We do not believe that those reporting requirements need to be statutory. We believe that charging schemes have a valuable role to play, but they are not the only influencing factor on noise and emissions from aircraft.
	The larger airports that are more likely to take up the powers in new section 38 will already have been designated under section 35 of the 1982 Act and have consultative arrangements in place. Reporting on noise and emissions monitoring will take place through those arrangements; as regards noise, the largest airports are covered by the Aerodromes (Noise Restrictions) (Rules and Procedures) Regulations 2003, which implement the European directive on noise-related operating restrictions.
	Amendment No. 10 also imposes a reporting requirement, this time on the Secretary of State, who would be required to report annually to Parliament on the impact of airports' charging schemes on reducing noise and emissions, and on the means for monitoring noise and emissions at those airports and along flight paths. I do not believe that that would be an appropriate requirement. The levels of noise and emission at an aerodrome may vary for reasons other than the imposition of charges; for example, because of changes in the type of aircraft using the airport due to changes in the local economy, or improvements in operational practice driven by an airline operator's wish to improve fuel efficiency.
	Before The Future of Air Transport was published, my Department consulted on a range of proposals to do with the control of noise from civil aircraft. One of these involved giving local authorities a role in non-designated airports' noise amelioration measures. Amendment No. 19 has a similar intent.

John Redwood: Will the Minister give way?

Karen Buck: No, I have nearly finished.
	Our conclusion, following consultation, was that such involvement of local authorities in non-designated airports' noise control measures would be too bureaucratic, given the existence of the power to designate an airport should its voluntary amelioration measures be inadequate. The Government remain of that view; local authorities have a statutory right to be included in the consultative arrangements made by airports designated under section 35 of the 1982 Act.

John Redwood: Will the Minister give way?

Karen Buck: I am very conscious of the fact that I have already gone on too long and that people are anxious to move on, but I was keen to reply in detail. We have been in debate for some time and I am trying to conclude my remarks.
	On amendments Nos. 21 and 1, the amendment in clause 2 to section 78(3) of the 1982 Act has clearly excited a great deal of concern among hon. Members whose constituencies are affected by night flying at the designated airports. On Second Reading and in Standing Committee, the Government sought to explain their position on the current night flying restrictions regime and on the proposals for a revised regime to run from October 2006 to October 2012. As hon. Members have mentioned, permission is currently being sought by a number of claimants for a judicial review of the consultation proposals.

John Redwood: Why does the Minister bother to come to the House when she does not listen to anything that people say and has not made a single concession on the Bill, despite a lot of good advice from Members of all parties? What is the point? Is it not a travesty of democracy?

Karen Buck: I think that that was a rhetorical question.
	I am anxious that the Government should not intrude on the role of the courts by commenting on a particular dispute concerning the application of the existing legislation on restrictions on night flightsincluding the way that aircraft are classified for such purposesat Heathrow, Gatwick and Stansted. Consultation on the Government's proposed night flying restrictions closed on 16 September and we are giving careful consideration to the large number of responses received. I am grateful to all those who responded, including hon. Members. I will not be able to announce the outcome of the consultation in advance of completing the full consideration of responses, but I state again that the proposed change to the legislation will not impact on the current process to determine night flying restrictions at the designated airports from October 2006 to October 2012, regardless of whether the Bill completes its passage before that announcement is made, and that the restrictions will involve a limit on aircraft movements.
	On the question of Heathrow, and in response to my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington, the limit of 480,000 movements imposed by the planning inspector would also not be overturned by way of a future decision to set night flying restrictions without a movements limit. There would still be a total movements limit, and were there to be an increase in night flights, for example, that would be within the cap.
	I think that it is the mood of the House that I should draw my comments to a conclusion. [Hon. Members: Yes.] I have read the mood of the House correctly. Although I realise that I have not satisfied the concerns of all Opposition Members, I have commented in detail on a number of those issues, as I did in Committee. I believe that the Bill strikes a proper balance between the environmental sustainability issues that cause concern to Members of Parliament and the need to maintain a healthy aviation industry.

Alan Duncan: In view of everything that the Minister has said, we shall be pressing new clause 4 and amendment No. 1 to a Division.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:
	The House divided: Ayes 160, Noes 297.

Question accordingly negatived.

New Clause 5
	  
	Reporting of Banned Airlines

'(1)   Within one month after the passing of this Act, the Secretary of State shall lay before Parliament
	(a)   a list of the airlines which are banned from United Kingdom air space, and
	(b)   a list of the airlines which are permitted to fly in United Kingdom air space which are banned in any other country of the European Union and the reasons why the Secretary of State has chosen not to ban these airlines from United Kingdom air space.
	(2)   The list produced under subsection (1) shall be updated monthly.'. [Tom Brake.]
	Brought up, and read the First time.

Tom Brake: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
	Hon. Members might be wondering why the new clause has been proposed now and why the subject has not come up in previous debates. A series of crashes made August 2005 one of the worst months in recent years for aviation accidents: on 14 August a Helios Airways flight crashed, killing 121 people; on 16 August a Colombian plane operated by West Caribbean Airways crashed, killing 160 people; and on 23 August, a Boeing 737 crashed on an internal flight in Peru, reportedly killing 40 people. That is why we are moving the new clause today.
	I have pulled some information off websites to illustrate the present position on airlines that are banned in the UK and countries whose aircraft are banned from flying to the UK. The countries include the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Equatorial Guinea, Liberia, Sierra Leone, Swaziland and Tajikistan; the airlines include Air Mauritanie, Phoenix Aviation and Thailand's Phuket Airlines. One can discover the state of play in other countries, too. The Swiss have simplified their policy by stating that they will ban from their air space any airline that has already been banned by the European Union or by a European Free Trade Association state. However, they then add a couple of other airlinesFlash Airlines from Egypt and Air Van Airlines from Armenia.
	There is quite a long list of airlines banned from flying in Belgian air space. There are some airlines that are common with the Swiss list, including Air Van Airlines, for instance. There are other airlines that are not included, and certainly on the UK list. The list of airlines banned from French air space is not consistent with the list of those airlines that are banned from the UK's air space.
	The purpose of the new clause is to introduce some consistency so that those who are wanting to make judgments about which airlines to fly with can do so in the full knowledge of whether those airlines are banned in the UK and whether they are banned in other countries. If they are banned from flying to other countries, we should know why the Secretary of State has chosen not to ban them from UK air space.
	It may be that the Minister will say that none of the airlines that are on the French list or on the Belgian list fly to the UK. That would be welcome. The Minister will also need to say whether there are any discussions already with those countries to ensure that there is consistency. I am aware that at a European Union level there are plans to introduce a common list, but we need measures to be taken much sooner. There are no guarantees that the EU will come to a swift and satisfactory conclusion on this very important issue.
	When the Minister responds, I hope that he will be able to clarify exactly what the relationship is between the Department of Trade and Industry and its counterparts in relation to banning airlines and whether there is, when the French ban an airline, for example, immediate discussion with the UK about whether it would be appropriate for that airline to be banned in the UK. I hope also that the Minister will be able to set out the time scales for coming to a conclusion at an EU level. If the time scales mean that we will have to wait for months or years before some sort of decision is implemented at an EU level, it would be entirely appropriate for the UK Government to publicise, albeit in a rather discreet way, the airlines that are banned. That information does not hit us when we go to the Department's website to try to find it. It would be entirely appropriate also for our Government to take action now to make it clear why, if other countries are banning airlines from flying into their air space, we have not chosen to do the same thing.
	I hope that the Minister will be able to give some reassurances on these matters. If not, I will be seeking to push the new clause to a vote.

Julian Brazier: My party has some sympathy with the thinking behind the new clause but it is not able to support it. The hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake) has set out concerns about a number of airlines that have poor safety records. He has said that a number of them are banned from visiting the UK. He started to lose me when he suggested that his clause could be a half-way step towards ultimately the issuing of EU-wide guidance, if I understood him correctly. He may wish to correct me.
	It seems to the Opposition that the issue should be decided by national authoritiesthe Civil Aviation Authority in our case. We may have a particular reason why we do not think that a particular airline is safe and may disagree with other countries on that. Conversely there are circumstances where a European-wide body might come under pressure to ban a particular airline for a reason that had nothing to do with its safety record.

Tom Brake: The hon. Gentleman has understood our position correctly. If the time scales for introducing something at an EU levelI think that that is the appropriate way to proceedare such that we are talking of the long-term future, it would be appropriate for the UK Government to introduce the clause as a half-way house.

Julian Brazier: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for confirming his position. We are firmly opposed to giving up sovereignty in this area. That is not a matter of ideology but it is the straightforward fact that we or the CAA may take a view that a particular airline is dangerous when other equivalents abroad do not. There could be circumstances in which the International Air Transport Association might come under pressure for commercial or political reasons, or whatever, to ban an airline that did not have a poor safety record.
	What is the provision which has been described as a halfway house trying to achieve? The hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington has made it clear that the list is already available. It may not be as prominent on the website as he would like, but we do not need primary legislation to rectify that. If a particular airline has been banned by another EU country but not by the UK, we can ask the CAA why it has taken that view. We can see no reason for adopting the new clause.

John Pugh: I accept the argument that in the European Union undue pressure may be applied to organisations to ban a particular airline for commercial reasons, but why does the hon. Gentleman think that that will not happen at a national level? Precisely such a danger could be present. France, for example, might choose to ban an airline if it found it commercially convenient to do so.

Julian Brazier: The hon. Gentleman has just made my point for me. It is most unlikely that the Civil Aviation Authority would want to ban an airline for commercial reasons. It has a long history of focusing on aviation safety and its other duties. Its French equivalent is extremely competent and has a comparable level of technical expertise, but it is much more subject to Government pressures than the CAA.
	Finally, without wishing to try your patience, Mr. Deputy Speaker, we cannot discuss the real danger to aviation safety because the amendment dealing with the transfer of powers from the CAA to European Aviation Safety Agency on certificates of airworthinessthe cornerstone of air safetywas not selected. The fact that the individuals concerned here and in France do not want to transfer along with those powers opens up a frightening gap in the medium term.
	To conclude, while we have the greatest sympathy with Liberal Democrat concerns for aviation safety, we do not think that their proposal would improve it.

Stephen Ladyman: It does not happen very often, but when it does, we should acknowledge itI agreed almost entirely with the contribution of the hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier), who marshalled his thoughts on the new clause very well.
	I understand why the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake) has raised these concerns, and I would have been surprised if someone had not done so. However, the efforts of the Department and the CAA, which we are pursuing through the European Union, are adequate to deal with the matter. Briefly, any airline from outside the EU, Iceland, Norway or Switzerland which wishes to pick up or put down passengers or cargo in the UK requires a permit from the Secretary of State for Transport. It is a condition of the permit that the airline should be operated in accordance with international safety standards established by International Civil Aviation Organisation. If we have doubts about whether an aircraft or airline complies with international safety standards, we will arrange for the aircraft to be inspected by the Civil Aviation Authority. Permits may be refused, and existing permits suspended or revoked by the Secretary of State. That can occur where there is a breach of a permit condition, including non-compliance with international safety standards. Permit decisions are reviewed in the light of new information or changed circumstances. While a restriction placed on a foreign airline by another EU member state will be taken into account when considering the issue of a permit, the final decision rests with the Secretary of State.
	A list of foreign airlines to which the Secretary of State has refused permission to operate commercial services to the UK is published on the Department's website, as the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington said. I noted his comment that it is not prominent on the website, and I shall make sure that that is reviewed. I have no reason to believe, however, that it is difficult to find that list if one knows what one is looking for. The list is amended promptly, as and when necessary.
	As to airlines refused operating permission by other member states, we currently have access to this information only through the safety assessment of foreign aircraft programme established by the European civil aviation conference. This information is shared in confidence and on the understanding that only the state making the decision should make it public. It would therefore not be appropriate for us to make public reports listing airlines banned by other member states.
	I recognise however the need for greater transparency and consistency in dealing with the safety of foreign aircraft within Europe. Hon. Members may be reassured to know that a European directive on the safety of third-country aircraft using Community airports was adopted on 21 April 2004 and will be implemented by 30 April next year. The directive establishes a harmonised procedure for safety inspections of third-country aircraft and for the sharing of information derived from such inspections. In addition, it provides a mechanism for a restriction imposed by one member state to be extended to the whole Community.
	In addition, a regulation is being developed by the European Union which would require the European Commission to publish a list of airlines that have been refused permission to operate commercial services to any member states. Latest discussions of the proposal suggest that it may be amended to establish common criteria for the refusal of operating permission to third-country airlines and the establishment of a list of airlines refused permission to operate to any Community airport.
	I took the UK chair at Transport Council in Luxembourg last week, where the matter was discussed with a view to progressing it. The French Government are particularly anxious for progress to be made, because a number of French citizens lost their lives in accidents over the summer. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that the matter is being treated urgently by the Commission and by the Council. In the light of the action already being taken in respect of the safety of foreign airlines, the amendment is unnecessary and I invite the hon. Gentleman to withdraw it.

John Pugh: If the European Community draws up its own list and it does not exactly coincide with the British list, will the British list still be paramount for the UK Government, or will European law in this case have primacy?

Stephen Ladyman: That is the area where the debate is taking placehow we resolve the differences between states. I may be doing the French an injustice in paraphrasing their position, but as I understand it, they believe that the list adopted should be a superset of all the lists of all the member states, so that no airline that is banned in one country can fly in another. However, there is some disagreement in Council about whether that is the correct approach. Other member states take the position that if a member state wishes to include on its list an airline that is not included on the lists of other member states, it should be for that state to do so in respect of its own nation, and for it to try and convince the other member states that we should all upgrade our lists to its standard.
	The position of the UK Government is clear. We expect to see a standard that meets the UK criteriain other words, we reserve the right to see that any airline that we want banned is banned from the UK. But how we ultimately resolve the issue and get agreement across all the partners is a matter for continuing discussion in Council. I expect to see further progress by the next Transport Council, which is in early December. With that, I hope I have convinced hon. Gentlemen that we are working urgently to resolve the matter not only through the actions that we have already taken in the UK, but among the partners of the EU, where it is being given the appropriate level of priority.

Tom Brake: I thank the Minister for setting out the progress that is being made, which is welcome. I was aware of some of the matters that he mentioned, but not of others. He has highlighted the fact that confusion will persist among air travellers about why certain airlines can operate in UK air space, whereas they cannot in other countries, particularly when the information about the banned airlines in other EU countries is available to those who have the nous to find it on those countries' websites.
	I am afraid that the Minister, while setting out the progress that has been made, has not addressed the central issue, which is the confusion that will exist among air travellers as to why different standards apply. That information needs to be made public, so I should like to press the new clause to a vote.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:
	The House divided: Ayes 56, Noes 290.

Question accordingly negatived.

New Clause 7
	  
	Facilities for Consultation at Certain Aerodromes

'For section 35 of the Civil Aviation Act 1982 (c. 16) (facilities for consultation at certain aerodromes) substitute
	(1)   At all aerodromes designated for the purposes of this section by the Secretary of State, the local authority shall establish a committee including representatives of
	(a)   users of the aerodrome,
	(b)   relevant local authorities, and
	(c)   any other organisation representing the interests of persons concerned with the locality in which the aerodrome is situated,
	for the purpose of consultation with respect to any matter concerning the management or administration of the aerodrome which affects their interests.
	(2)   The chairperson of any committee established under subsection (1) shall be independent.
	(3)   The local authority shall publish the minutes of all meetings held by a committee established under section (1).
	(4)   The Secretary of State shall, by regulation, establish a system for the independent monitoring of consultative committees established under section 35 of the Civil Aviation Act 1982 (c. 16), to ensure
	(a)   that Department of Transport guidelines on consultative committees are produced, pursuant to section 35 of the 1982 Act,
	(b)   fair representation of the full range of local interests, providing that does not make the committee of a size that it precludes it from functioning effectively, and
	(c)   that the appointment of the chairman and secretary of the committee are sufficiently independent.'.[Tom Brake.]
	Brought up, and read the First time.

Tom Brake: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
	I am pleased to have an opportunity, albeit brief, to speak to new clause 7. For Members who may not be familiar with section 35 of the Civil Aviation Act 1982, it states:
	The person having the management of any aerodrome . . . shall provide . . . adequate facilities for consultation with respect to any matter concerning the management or administration of the aerodrome which affects their interests.
	The new clause would change section 35, making it the responsibility of the local authority to establish a committee, including representatives of
	It being Nine o'clock, Mr. Deputy Speaker, put the Questions necessary to bring proceedings on consideration of the Bill to a conclusion, pursuant to Order [27 June].

Clause 2
	  
	Regulation by Secretary of State of Noise and Vibration from Aircraft

Amendment proposed
	No. 1, in page 2, line 41, leave out subsection (2).[Mr. Duncan.]
	Question put, That the amendment be made:
	The House divided: Ayes 213, Noes 278.

Question accordingly negatived.
	Order for Third Reading read.

Karen Buck: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
	I am grateful to everyone, or nearly everyone, who has taken part in the debate and in Committee. We have given the Bill a thorough consideration.
	I shall be brief in my remarks but I would like to spend a few minutes on an aspect of the debate that we unfortunately did not have sufficient opportunity to discuss. On Second Reading, we promised to return with a statement on our attitude to the Civil Aviation Authority's proposal for a 1 levy on all air passengers departing from the UK to help us deal with tour operator and airline insolvency. Those amendments were not selected so I placed a written statement before the House setting out our response to the proposals.
	We decided on balance that regulation on that scale would not be proportionate given that the risk to passengers can be reduced in other ways and that the risk of airline failure is small.

Brian H Donohoe: Has the Minister considered the number of airlines in the United States that are under chapter 11 and on the edge of bankruptcy? Swissair has already gone belly up and other European airlines are in the same position. In such cases, what will happen to UK passengers if they are not covered by insurance, which is the present state of play?

Karen Buck: I will try to cover some of those remarks but I do not want to detain the House too much.

Gwyneth Dunwoody: My hon. Friend will be aware that there was a failure during the summer. Although it received astonishingly little publicity, there is no doubt that a lot of people were stranded. It happened to be convenient that many people got on other planes. She should seriously consider the fact that airlines can go belly up.

Karen Buck: I will address my hon. Friend's remarks. As I have said, the CAA's advice states that
	the chance of failing is roughly between 2 and 3 per cent.
	We believe on balance that insurance should only be compulsory in exceptional circumstances. We do not require travellers to take out medical insurance or an E111. Even with car insurance, the legal requirement is limited to third-party liabilities. The Government have already been working with the airline industry to improve consumer information about insurance cover when booking flights. UK airlines have helped us to develop a basic message for passengers.

Alan Duncan: Is not this also effectively a third-party liability, which is roughly equivalent to the other scale of risk where compulsory insurance ingredients are required?

Karen Buck: I am not sure what the hon. Gentleman means. I cannot see that there is third-party liability; this is a form of compulsory insurance. We weighed up a number of pros and consthe argument was finely balancedand we found no other area of public policy where we would expect people to be insured compulsorily.

Tom Brake: On weighing up the pros and cons, how did the Minister weigh up the 100 million of regulatory costs that the CAA's proposal would have saved versus, as far as I can tell, no saving in regulatory costs for the policy of doing nothing that she has adopted?

Karen Buck: The costs effectively fall on different parts of the industry. In considering the issue, we bore in mind not only the points about consumer protection and insurance, but the fact that the different parts of the industry had very different interests. The tour operators were generally in favour of one approach, and the airlines were generally, with some exceptions, in favour of another. So it is a question of considering all the different players and then making a decision.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) referred to the Irish airline, EUjet, which failed this summer. Other low-cost airlines stepped in to help passengers get home. Similarly, when Swissair and Sabena failed, other full-service airlines honoured the homeward tickets of passengers abroad. The Government have been encouraged by the willingness expressed by airlines to ensure that travellers have better information about insurance and by airlines' assurances that they would continue to take voluntary action on repatriation. I will talk further to airlines in the coming weeks to ensure that effective voluntary measures are in place as quickly as possible.
	The Government are also asking the CAA to review whether the system of ATOLair travel organisers' licensingbonds could be replaced with a less burdensome means of meeting tour operators' obligations to package holiday-makers under the package travel directive, while replenishing the air travel trust fund following the passage of the Bill. I am also aware that the Transport Committee, which is chaired by my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich, will consider the issue and invite evidence on it during the next few weeks. I am sure that that will give us an opportunity to discuss this in detail.

Rob Marris: Does my hon. Friend share my bemusement that the proponents of the scheme seem to suggest that someone who takes a Ryanair flight to Dublin for a stag weekend at a cost of 30 should pay 1 in insurancethe same as someone who is quite rich who goes to the Bahamas first class?

Karen Buck: That was certainly very much one of the considerations that was weighed up. Some advocates of the proposal claimed that it would end a two-tier system; but, on closer examination, it would merely replace one form of two-tier system with another. As I say, the proposal will be considered by the Select Committee, and no doubt, it will be considered further.
	We do not deny the environmental impacts of aviation, which have been at the core of the debates on Second Reading and in Committee. We seek to reduce and mitigate those impacts wherever possible, but the Government remain of the view that, wherever possible, local solutions are best for local problems. We believe that airport operators will make appropriate use of the powers the Bill will make available to them to tackle environmental issues at local level. The Government have statutory powers that we can use where the voluntary approach does not suffice, and those powers will be deployed if necessary.

Edward Garnier: Will the Minister give way?

Karen Buck: I will, but for absolutely the last time.

Edward Garnier: I am extremely grateful. I know that the Government use the expression local solutions quite frequently, but I am not sure that they know what local means. Does local mean close to the airport, or does it cover people, such as my constituents, who live 20 to 50 miles from the airport and who are adversely affected by it? At the minute, it does not look as though it means that.

Karen Buck: If my memory serves me, the default position is about 40 km from the central airport, and it can be extended further to 60 km. I believe that local is reasonably widely defined, and I hope that that is enough to satisfy the hon. and learned Gentleman that his concerns are covered by the powers in the Bill.
	I appreciate hon. Members' concerns regarding the powers by which we control noise at Heathrow, Gatwick and Stansted. That was also the subject of a considerable amount of discussion in Committee. Any future proposals for changes to the noise control regime at Heathrow, Gatwick and Stansted would be subject to public consultation. The next night restrictions regime until 2012 will be based on current legislation and will continue to incorporate a movements limit. Airports' ability to set up noise control measures and impose penalties on aircraft operators will be enshrined in statute, but airports should follow a balanced approach when introducing new measures.
	The Bill will also transfer the costs of the CAA's aviation health unit from the taxpayer to the aviation industry; a much fairer arrangement because those that benefit from this service will pay for it. Our Bill will sweep away unnecessary restrictions on public airport companies to develop their businesses.

John Smith: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Karen Buck: I am afraid that I am just about to conclude.
	The Bill will abolish appeals to the Secretary of State in respect of route licence applications, which will speed up the take up of new air services, thus benefiting the consumer.
	I believe this to be a good and balanced Bill, and I commend it to the House.

Alan Duncan: I do not want to detain the House long except to review our attitude to the Bill, which we have expressed from the very beginning. Where a lot of thought could have been put into devising a coherent policy enshrined in legislation for us to consider, we really have a complete hotchpotch. We have a random and arbitrary piece of legislation that lays down no coherent policy for the future benefit of the world. The Bill gives us no opportunity to distinguish properly between the poacher and the gamekeeper, and no coherent and consistent regime for either emissions or noise. It is apparent from the mood of the House that the Minister has very little enthusiastic support for the Bill from Labour Members.

John Smith: I am sure that, had we had the opportunity on Report to reach clause 7, hon. Members on both sides would have warmly welcomed the groundbreaking proposal to place a statutory duty on the Secretary of State for Transport to safeguard the health of aviation passengers. My understanding is that this is, indeed, a first in the world, and the Government should be congratulated on it. I just regret that that duty of care was not extended to the airlines themselves.

Alan Duncan: Most of the health issues in the Bill, as well as in the amendments that we might have discussed today, are about the health of people on the ground, not in the air. If the hon. Gentleman has any objection to not being able to reach those clauses, he should take it up with his party, his Chief Whip and his Prime Minister for programming legislation and denying the House on every occasion that we consider a Bill the opportunity properly to scrutinise it. If the hon. Gentleman stands up and complains in the way that he has done, he has only himself to blame.

John Smith: rose

Alan Duncan: No, I will not give way again.
	It is apparent from what we have seen in the House tonight that there is very little support for the Bill on the Labour Benches. We have had a couple of speeches from Members with specific interests in airports in their constituencies, and it is distressing that we have heard no clear arguments for the environmental benefits of the Billbe they about noise or emissions. The Bill is arbitrary and incoherent.
	Perhaps the most dismaying comment was made just a second ago when the Minister said that she thought that local problems were best dealt with at local level. Emissions are not a local problem; they are a global problem. She should perhaps have come up with better solutions to that problem than she has tonight.
	We are perhaps able on Third Reading to concentrate, as the Minister did, on the travel trust, the insurance against companies going bankrupt. I said on Second Reading that there was a clear argument for saying that the state should not insure anybody at all and that, in the modern world of travel, everyone should insure themselves as they do their house, their life or anything else. We are, of course, compelled to insure our motor cars, largely, as the Minister rightly said, because of the damage that they might do to other people.
	We have pointed out that it is the inconsistency and inequity of the current regime of travel insurance that has become a complete and utter nonsense. We have inherited a model that was designed in the 1970s, when most people went abroad on package holidays. If a package tour company went bankrupt, the system potentially covered well over 90 per cent. of people travelling in such a way. The rise of low-cost airlines and increased international travel has shifted the balance dramatically away from such models, so far fewer people are now covered by the insurance that currently exists. We also have an insurance arrangement that leaves the supposedly effective model in deep deficit, so the Government are required to top it up. Many travellers think that they are covered when they are not. The perpetuation of the flawed model is thus the one option that is nonsensical.
	There are two options. One is to say, You all cover yourselves, and the other is to put a quid on everyone's ticket for perhaps four years so that we can get a kitty to cover people. The Government have shied away from that option by arguing that the modern world says that people can travel on a low-cost airline, insure themselves and somehow get home if they need to. However, an absurd piece of EU legislation called the package travel directive remains in place and that perpetuates the absurdly limited and fragmented model of cover. I have not heard from the Government about how they will introduce consistency after rejecting the model offered by the Civil Aviation Authority.
	I think that I am right in saying that in the entire history of the European Union, no directive has been repealed by this House. We thus have a constitutional structure that is forcing on us a fossilised picture of cover, and this House, in debating this Bill, has neither the power, nor even the will, to overturn a directive that puts in place something that is now clearly nonsensical and absurd. I ask the Minister to her face whether it is now Government policy to persuade the European Unionperhaps we will have more influence now that we have the presidencyto repeal the package travel directive.

Karen Buck: I can tell the hon. Gentleman that we intend to enter into discussions with the CAA to examine a reform of the bonding system to ensure that companies that are currently covered by the package travel directive will be able to determine whether the burden on them, which they believe to be disproportionate, can be covered in an alternative way. We intend to do that because we realise that there is an issue for consumers and a possible inequity for different kinds of holiday providers.

Alan Duncan: Quite clearly the answer is no. The Minister has no intention whatever of trying to repeal the package travel directive. Although we get 150 or so directives and 1,000 or more regulations a year, I believe it is trueI am happy to be disprovedthat none has ever been revised or repealed. We are thus in a constitutional and legislative ratchet. The situation is a perfect example of the Government believing that they are empowered to decide how companies and passengers should be affected, yet declining to make even an effort to address the problem and thus revise the situation. In other words, they accept whatever comes from the European Union and somehow work around it.
	We shall be stuck with the ridiculous picture of an insurance that covers an old-fashioned part of the travel market. However, in the Government's own words, as they argue explicitly in a written statement published todaythey at least deserve credit for putting out something detailed in a written statementthey do not accept the arguments for extending cover. They intend to perpetuate an unacceptable position and I am sorry that the Bill does not deal with that.
	The Bill has good intentions. We all want to control noise and emissions, but it is a great pity that the opportunity to introduce a sensible and modern regime to control noise and emissions in a crowded and busy world has been lamentably missed.

Gwyneth Dunwoody: This is an extraordinarily incompetent piece of legislation. It misses most of the things that are important. I am concerned in particular about financial protection for air travellers. That should have been debated at great length. The original scheme, which was tailored for a particular set of circumstances, has been overcome by changes in the way in which people travel. It is also nonsense to suggest that people who buy furniture are the same as those who take a holiday abroad on a low-cost airline. By definition, people who use low-cost airlines with their families are not able to buy alternative tickets. If we seriously think that there will always be other seats available and that other airlines, including the two or three very good ones that are opposed to the measure, will always find places for people, we will get a bad shock. The Government will have to take responsibility for the large number of holidaymakers who are unable to return.
	After two full years of consultation, a course of masterly inaction will now ensure that nothing is done to halt the erosion of consumer protection. Presumably, the Minister means that she will ask for it to be removed altogether. Nothing will be done to reduce the incentive for tour operators to de-package their existing business, which threatens the viability of the ATOL scheme. Nothing will be done to simplify the system so that consumers can understand it. Nothing will be done to combat the increased risk of airline failures. That is a real risk. It is a pretend industry that hardly owns any assets and is sailing, in literal terms, very close to the wind. We will undoubtedly see a number of crashesif not literal, then certainly economic onesbefore long.
	The unlevel playing field between tour operators and airlines will continue unless the Government intend to remove all protection. It is extraordinary for a Government who are trying so hard, under the guise of consumer protection, to wreck the way in which the national health service works to say that they are not interested, for the sake of 1 a ticket, in protecting the people who travel out of this country on holiday with their family.
	It is a shame. I am sorry that the Government have taken that attitude. We shall return to the subject, but before that time comes, they will have the opportunity to rue their decision.

Tom Brake: Clearly, the Bill is beneficial in parts. Clarifying the law on what airport operators can charge for noise and emissions, giving commercial freedom to public airport operators and making the CAA responsible for the health of people on board aircraft are positive developments. There are great concerns, however. The clearest of those is in relation to noise and breaking the link with the number of flights. The Bill does not reflect the House's concern about that.
	As hon. Members said, the Bill has a gaping hole. The Minister was decent enough to recognise that by devoting a large part of her speech to the air travel trust fund and the 1 levy. I do not understand why the Government are failing to make moves on that simple issue, especially when the CAA has provided them with a simple solution that has the backing of the Federation of Tour Operators. The introduction of the 1 levy would have made things clear to passengers who are confused about where they stand in relation to cover should the airline they are flying with fail. We are not talking about a small number of people. Each year, 84 million people are travelling without that insurance, and a large percentage of them will believe that they are insured.
	There are questions that the Minister needs to answer. I asked her about the 100 million of savings in regulatory costs and gave her an opportunity to clarify what cost savings she expected to derive from her proposal, and she was unable to provide those figures. Has the Minister seen the economic analysis by Ernst and Young, commissioned on a brief agreed by the Department for Transport and the CAA, which looked at various options and concluded that a 1 levy on all flights is the most economically rational solution to the issue of providing passenger protection? What does the hon. Lady think of that analysis, and why has it been so readily dismissed by the Government? The Minister of State said on Second Reading that he would listen to Members' views and take them into account. I am sure that he listened, but there is little evidence that he took into account the views on the air travel trust fundquite the contrary.
	Other Members have referred to EUjet. Is the hon. Lady aware that only 16 per cent. of the EUjet passengers were able to take advantage of special offers from other airlines to fly them back? What would she say to the 84 per cent. who found themselves stranded and had to make their own financial arrangementsin some cases, I am sure, at great costto get themselves repatriated to the UK?
	The Minister has given the House nothing in the way of reassurance about how she will tackle the decline of ATOL protection. That is the biggest weakness in the Bill. There are lots of other valid measures, but the Minister and the Government have missed a huge opportunity to address one of the biggest issues in the industry, and I am sure that this will come back to haunt them the next time a UK airline fails and hundreds of passengers are stranded abroad. They will be wondering why the Government did not take up the CAA's offer of a solution to the problem, but left them stranded.

Brian H Donohoe: Earlier this evening, I made a point of order about an amendment that I had tabled and indicated to you, Mr. Speaker, that I was surprised that it had not been selected. Despite your explanation, I remain extremely disappointed that the matter was not voiced as it should have been in our debates. The time that we had did not allow us to expand our discussion to address the issue properly.
	It is not very often, Mr. Speaker, that I have differences with you in our debates, but in this instance I have to say that I am at variance with what the Government are saying about the 1 levy. I cannot believe that they equate the failure of an airline with a store going bankrupt. I find it astounding that anybody would suggest that it is like someone losing money after employing cowboy workmen. There is no common sense whatever in saying that the situation is like that of someone who is unfortunate enough to have losses on the stock market.
	The hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Duncan) raised the question of Europe. He was right to do so because, at some point, the Government will be forced to make significant alterations to the Bill. It is clear to me, at any rate, that there is an anomaly, and some discrimination, in the situation of the no-frills airlines and that of the chartered airlines. I do not know how the Government can say that, on balance, they have come to these conclusions. I want to know from the Minister what that balance waswas it 60:40, 70:30 or, as I suspect, something like 90:10?

Lembit �pik: I declare an interest as one of three members of the flying community in this House, together with the hon. Members for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth) and for Edinburgh, South (Nigel Griffiths). I reassure hon. Members that I am not a commercial pilot, so I speak in a private capacity. I shall make two points about the Bill and one observation about general aviation.
	Some aspects of the Bill need to be considered a little more, as we have heard. As a pilot, I have been flabbergasted at the increase in costs at many of the large airports, particularly for general aviation pilots. The fact that the authorities have total jurisdiction over what they charge has resulted in a sky-rocketing of some of the costs. As has been made clear on Report, there is considerable concern over the proposed financial penalties, which the authorities will also be able to set at any level without recourse to appeal. That could be damaging to aviation as a whole, because there will be an enormous temptation to use such penalties as a revenue-making scheme. I know that the legislation states that all the money should be passed to those who are perceived to be suffering ill effects, but it is not as simple as that. I hope that if the scheme shows itself to be flawed the Government will be willing to reconsider it.
	My second point relates to the explanatory notes. Any pilot would be concerned about paragraph 20 on page 5, which says:
	Requiring aircraft to take off or land in a given direction at a given time could also reduce the numbers of people subjected to the most severe aircraft noise.
	On the face of it, that sounds perfectly reasonableuntil one realises that pilots always have to land into wind. It is the most basic requirement. So it is disturbing, to say the least, to see in the explanatory notes the implication that the direction of landing may be altered in order to reduce the discomfort of noise for local people. As far as I can see, the Government could achieve that only by introducing a scheme to alter wind direction. Unless the Prime Minister can control the weather, which even he does not pretend, the explanatory note should be modified. If it is used as an opportunity to interpret the legislation, it will make things more rather than less dangerous.
	Thirdly and finally, commercial aviation in this country is underpinned by general aviation, which is a multi-billion pound industry that does much to feed commercial aviation with pilots and to transport all manner of people around the country from small aerodromes. In interventions on Report, I sought reassuranceI think that I received itthat the intention of the Bill is not to influence general aviation. However, I hope that the Government will return to a couple of things that are very important to the general aviation sector. One is the question of N-registered aircraftthose registered in the United States but used in the UK for general aviation.
	The Minister will be aware that general aviation is very concerned about the potential for banning N-registered aircraft from the British register. There have been signs of a change of heart, suggesting that that will not happen in the short term, but I hope that the Minister will be willing to meet representatives of the general aviation sectorI see her nodding, so I will take that as a yesin order to discuss their concerns and the rationale behind allowing N-registered aircraft to continue.
	Connected to that there is a concern that, as we consider safety issues, Britain should learn from the experience of the United States, which provides pilots, particularly private pilots, with the opportunity to gain a less stringent instrument-rating qualification. In the United States, 50 per cent. of private pilots have that instrument rating, but in the United Kingdom, where instrument rating is far more complicated and difficult to secure, the qualification is possessed by less than 2 per cent. of the private pilot population. That has a bearing on safety for all carriers, including civil aviation and the commercial sector, because we all share the same airspace. Again, perhaps we can raise that subject in a meeting outside the Chamber.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake) has highlighted our concerns. I hope that the explanatory note will be clarified and that the Government will keep a close eye on changes to costs and charges after the Bill is implemented.

John McDonnell: Despite having opposed most of the Bill, I welcome parts of it, especially clause 7, which deals with the duty placed on the Secretary of State in respect of
	organising, carrying out and encouraging measures for safeguarding the health of persons on board aircraft.
	That is a major breakthrough, which will have a significant impact on the health of passengers. However, I regret that we were unable to reach the amendments that would have extended that duty to responsibility for those who live in the vicinity of airports.
	Research is demonstrating the impact of airports on those who live close to them. Emissions problems lead to increases in respiratory disease and we now have information and research from America on cancer rates in certain areas. In my constituency there is increasing evidence of birth defects resulting from air pollution in the areasome emanating from the airport, but some from the airport-related transport infrastructure, which has an impact on south Hillingdon. I would have liked some responsibility to be placed on the Secretary of State to consider and evaluate that information and to propose solutions to tackle such problems. Perhaps that is an issue for future legislation, which many of us will work to promote.

Laura Moffatt: There is much to commend the Bill to the House, although it is difficult for me to disguise my disappointment about the 1 levy. I ask the Minister to ensure that those who have long taken a close interest in the matter and who are not members of the Select Committee are able to take part in any continuing debate with the Civil Aviation Authority. I shall be most grateful if we are included, and I take heart from the fact that there will be an opportunity to examine the matter further.
	It seems stupid to me to say that a baggage loader at Gatwick airport is less interested in his or her environment than anyone else. I firmly believe that we can work in partnership on airport issues and I accept that people are able to reach voluntary agreements. There is much in the Bill that will improve the atmosphere surrounding airports. There should be no poachers and gamekeepers. We should work in partnership with one of the most successful industries in the UK. We must protect the environment and protect the industry itself.

John Smith: I shall make only a brief speech at the end of this interesting Third Reading debate. I support the Bill: it is generally good, but I am absolutely delighted with the provisions of clause 7. The members of the campaign group VARDAthe Victims of Air Related Deep Vein Thrombosis Associationshare my gratitude to the Government for taking the courageous step of introducing this legislation. The hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Duncan) clearly has not read the Bill, because clause 7 imposes for the first time ever, in any country, a statutory duty to safeguard the health of airline passengers. It creates the aviation health unit, which will be financed through a levy on the airlines and which will carry out research into aviation health concerns and publish advice to passengers. It also extends air navigation orders to include, for the first time, health matters relating to the aviation industry.
	In Committee, I tried to introduce a new clause that would have extended the Bill's powers and amended the Carriage by Air Act 1961 to override article 17 of the 1929 Warsaw convention, which limits the liability on injury to airline passengers

Alan Duncan: Will the hon. Gentleman give way on an important point?

John Smith: No, the hon. Gentleman is not interested

Alan Duncan: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. For the record, it is important to make a distinction between new clause 7 and the existing clause 7. I think that the hon. Member for Vale of Glamorgan (John Smith) has misunderstood the position.

Mr. Speaker: That is a matter for debate rather than a point of order.

John Smith: Thank you for your ruling, Mr. Speaker.
	We would have liked to see the Bill extended so that airlines had exactly the same duty of care towards their passengers as any other passenger carriers. It is absurd in the 21st century, when 1.5 billion people fly every year and when more than 16 million people in this country fly long haul, that they have no protection from risks to their health and the airlines have no responsibility. I hope that the Government will revisit the situation. I am certain that the Bill is a step in the right direction and that it is only a matter of time before airlines come into line with all other passenger carriers. I support the Bill.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

FINANCE AND SERVICES

Ordered,
	That Mr. Dave Watts be discharged from the Finance and Services Committee and Mr Eric Martlew be added.[Joan Ryan.]

ASYLUM SEEKERS

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.[Joan Ryan.]

Neil Gerrard: I am pleased to have the opportunity to initiate the first Adjournment debate after the summer recess. The main issue that I want to raise is the change that was made during the recess to granting indefinite leave to people who were given refugee status, a change that was mentioned in the five-year plan that the Home Office produced earlier this year, but a change that had never been debated or discussed in the House before it was brought into force at the end of August. When it became evident shortly before the summer recess that the change was likely to take place, several Members expressed concern. In the last few days before the summer recess more than 40 Members added their names to an early-day motion on the subject.
	I really do not understand the reasoning behind the change. It reverses a policy that the Labour Government introduced in 1998. It was announced in the White Paper of July 1998. Before 1998, anyone who was given refugee status was given only temporary permission to stay and had to wait four years before they could apply for indefinite leave. In the 1998 White Paper, we said that the immediate granting of indefinite leave would help refugees to integrate more easily and quickly into society, to the benefit of the entire community into which they had been accepted. It then went on to say that this policy was wholly consistent with the Government commitment to a more humanitarian approach to the UK's obligations under the 1951 refugee convention and to faster identification of those in genuine need of protection.
	Those arguments were absolutely right in 1998. I do not understand why the same arguments are not regarded as valid now. I know from correspondence that I have had with the Minister over the summer that he may say that things have changed since 1998, that we are now in a different situation and that the number of asylum applications has changed considerably. Indeed, it has dropped a lot in the past year or two. The Minister may well say that the time scale for decision making has changed. It is welcome that the time scale now for initial decisions is so much shorter than it used to be. The arguments that we made in 1998 for indefinite leave were not about numbers or time scales for decision making. They were about principleswhat was the best way to help people whom we recognised as refugees to integrate into society, and how could we best operate our commitments under the 1951 convention? The convention does not explicitly demand that we immediately give indefinite leave to someone to whom we grant refugee status, and until 1998 we did not grant leave in such circumstances. However, doing so is in the spirit of the convention, and that is the argument that we made in the 1998 White Paper.
	European countries do not all grant indefinite leave. In the five-year plan published earlier this year it was argued that a number of European countries granted refugees temporary leave initially rather than immediate settlement. That was true before 1998, however, and we did not regard it as a valid argument. If we are going to reverse the policy of granting indefinite leavea policy that is only seven years oldit should be possible to point to problems that have arisen from its operation, but I am not aware of any argument that such problems have been created. I am convinced, however, that problems will be created by the reversal of the policy. It is disingenuous to say, as the Home Office has said in correspondence, that the change is not intended to prolong the uncertainty and instability faced by refugees, because that is exactly what it is guaranteed to do.

John McDonnell: My hon. Friend said that we have not identified any problems that gave rise to a review of the policy. In many of our constituencies, we have witnessed the benefits of the policy introduced in 1998, which has provided the certainty and security sought by families who previously experienced the direst circumstances across the world.

Neil Gerrard: I agree. The arguments for the change are contradictory. The five-year plan said that refugees
	may be joined by their immediate family and will be encouraged to find work and participate in local communities during their period of temporary leave. This will ensure they make a full contribution to the UK while here.
	Leaving someone uncertain about how long they will remain here or what their future is militates against their being able to integrate and make a contribution. It cuts across the good things that have been done in the past five years. This Government were the first to produce a strategy for integration with the publication of Full and Equal Citizens in 2000. That document is still extremely valid, but things have progressed. Integration loans have been introduced, and there have been projects to help refugees integrate into society, many of which have been funded by the Home Office and have produced encouraging results. I do not see how our good work on integration accords with a step that will introduce greater uncertainty to people's lives.
	May I draw the Minister's attention to a letter to the Home Secretary from a group of psychologists who work with refugees and asylum seekers? The points that it makes were confirmed by a worker in my local mental health trust, who spends a great deal of her time working with refugees and asylum seekers.
	It being Ten o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.
	Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.[Joan Ryan.]

Neil Gerrard: The psychologists stated that they had grave concerns about the effect of the change on people with serious mental health problems that result from the circumstances of those who have become refugees. The psychologists viewed the granting of refugee status as signalling a phase of safety that allows them to begin work in earnest on tackling some of the symptoms that people are suffering. They went on to say that the prolonged uncertainties that people face when they are seeking asylum can have a serious detrimental effect on existing mental health problems, and that making refugee status conditional and temporary will make it much more difficult to work psychologically to improve the mental health of many of their clients.
	The psychologists cite guidelines produced last year by the National Institute for Clinical Excellence on post-traumatic stress disorder, which specifically referred to the situation of refugees and stated that trauma-focused therapies were typically inappropriate and ineffective while people do not have the security of refugee status. These are important and powerful points. We are dealing with people whom we have recognised as refugees. We acknowledge that they have suffered persecution. Some of them have been through very traumatic experiences. Some of them have serious mental health problems that need prolonged treatment. Everyone who is dealing with the matter, such as NICE and the psychologists, is giving us the same messagethat leaving those people with such uncertainty about their future will make it much more difficult to tackle post-traumatic stress, get them stabilised and deal with their mental health problems and the symptoms from which they have been suffering.
	I recognise that the 1951 convention does not demand that we provide permanent protection, but experience shows that when conditions change in their countries of origin, people granted refugee status often go back voluntarily. There are voluntary returns going on all the time. Past waves of refugeespeople whom I remember meeting 20 or 30 years ago, who had come to the UK from Chile or Argentina, and who had been political activists in those countrieswanted to go back when they saw that conditions had changed.
	The change will affect another aspect of integration by making it much more difficult for people with temporary status to gain employment, which would help them to settle and to make a contribution. There will not necessarily be a fixed period of time. It is proposed that at the end of five years there will be a review if nothing has happened in the meantime, but in some cases that review could come within a year, 18 months, or two years of their being granted temporary status. If a decision is made that there has been a significant change in the country of origin, that will lead to a review of all the individual decisions regarding people from that country. How many employers will be keen to take on people whose status is uncertain? We know now that many people who have been given exceptional leave to remain, even though that carries with it permission to work, have difficulty in persuading employers that that really is the case. I do not want to get into a debate this evening on the Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Bill, but one or two of its provisions will make matters much more difficult, to the point where exceptional leave runs out.
	There will be disagreements about whether conditions in countries of origin have changed sufficiently andanother important factorwhether such changes are permanent. The five-year plan and the statement referred to a change of conditions in the country that was regarded as sufficiently permanent. I am not sure how that judgment will be easily made. In the past 12 months we have seen some of the arguments that have cropped up about the returns to Zimbabwe, and now the possibility of forced returns of failed asylum seekers to Iraq. There will certainly be disputes about whether there have been genuine changes of condition, and that will lead to a clogging up of the appeals system, because anyone who is told that their leave is being withdrawn will have the right of appeal under the Bill that we are now considering. In time it will also lead to the clogging up of Members' advice surgeries, because we will frequently be dealing with families with children who are in school and who have grown up here, and I am sure that I do not have to remind the Minister about how difficult it is now for the Home Office to deal with such removals. Those are the sort of people who will be told that, after three, four or five years of temporary protection, they will have to go back to wherever they came from. I do not know anyone who works with refugees who is supportive of the change. No legislation would be required. The measure was brought in without legislation and I urge the Minister to have another look at it.
	Another matter that has been drawn to the attention of a number of hon. Members today concerns the situation of some British citizens who are married to failed asylum seekers. I would not necessarily expect answers this evening, but perhaps the Minister will consider what I have to say and perhaps write to me. Their husbandsit is often husbandsare told that they have to return to their country of origin. I understand the policies on marriage that have been applied in the Home Office for some time, going back to 1996 and DP3/96, and the reasoning behind that. Obviously fake marriages have been used to avoid immigration controls, but the Home Office is not questioning the genuine nature of the marriage of the people whom I and a number of other hon. Members met today. Nevertheless, it says that, because a marriage took place after a failed asylum claim, the person concerned must go back to their country of origin, or their spouse can accompany them. To tell a British citizen that they can accompany their spouse to the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Iran or Iraq, and make an application from there, is hardly credible when the Foreign Office advises British citizens not to set foot in such countries.
	The way such cases are being dealt with needs to be looked at. I understand all the arguments about the need to deal with fake marriagesI have seen some fake marriages, as I am sure others havebut I am referring to marriages whose genuine nature is not in question yet we are asking either British citizens or their spouses to go to countries that the Foreign Office regards as dangerous. I am sure that the Minister will be approached by hon. Members about this and I hope that he will consider such cases with some sympathy and see whether we can adopt a rather more humanitarian approach than we are at present.

Andy Burnham: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Gerrard) on securing the debate.
	At the start of his remarks, my hon. Friend rightly pointed out that hon. Members should be given the opportunity to discuss such a significant policy change. I recognise that the debate is important, and it is pleasing to see so many of my hon. Friends and the hon. Member for North Southwark and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes).
	I listened carefully to my hon. Friend, who has anticipated some of my argumentshe is well versed in reading letters from the Home Officebut if he listens to the detail, I can provide reassurance on many of his points. Although I have been in the House for only a short time, I know that no hon. Member is more assiduous than him in raising such matters and that his comments are born out of genuine concern.
	The Government remain committed to the 1951 refugee convention, which is part of a legal and ethical framework that enshrines basic principles of human decencya civilised society may be judged on how it treats desperate people who are fleeing persecution. I do not accept that the new policy of granting refugees five years' limited leave to remain in the first instance rather than immediate settlement represents an erosion of the Government's commitment to refugees or to the international protection system in general. Hon. Members are understandably concerned about how the new policy will operate, which is why I want to take this opportunity clearly to set out why we are introducing it, how we envisage that it will work in practice and what its consequences will be for refugees and their families.
	My hon. Friend has rightly pointed out that the Government's five-year strategy on asylum and immigration, which was published in February, set out our intention to introduce a policy of limited leave rather than immediate settlement for refugees, which was also a manifesto commitment. My hon. Friend the Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Nationality announced the new policy to both Houses in a written ministerial statement on 19 July, and it was implemented on 30 August. From that date onwards, all refugees, other than those arriving in the UK under resettlement programmes, have been granted five years' limited leave to remain rather than immediate indefinite leave to remain.
	We made that change for two main reasons: first, there should be a clear and consistent approach to those obtaining leave under the immigration rules on how long they have to be here before they become eligible for settlement, and we have decided to set that period at five years for most categories; secondly, we should provide refuge to people for as long as they need it, but if conditions in their country improve significantly, it is reasonable to expect them to return, particularly where they have spent only a relatively short period in the UK.
	Some have argued that the new policy is not within the spirit of the refugee conventionI note that my hon. Friend has not made that argument this eveningwhile others have suggested that it flies in the face of the Government's decision in 1998 to give recognised refugees immediate indefinite leave to remain. Those considerations are important, and I shall address each of them in turn.
	The refugee convention states that it shall cease to apply to someone who
	can no longer, because of the circumstances in connection with which he has been recognised as a refugee have ceased to exist, continue to refuse to avail himself of the protection of his country of nationality.
	In other words, an individual is only a refugee for as long as he needs the protection of the refugee convention and for no longer. Our new policy is therefore within the spirit of the refugee convention, but there should be no doubt that where the conditions that gave rise to a refugee's fear of persecution continue to exist after five years, we will allow them to seek permanent settlement in the UK. However, where there has been a significant and non-temporary change in conditions in their country sufficient to suggest that they could return in safety, they will be expected to return thereindeed, I am sure that many refugees would wish to go home in such circumstances.
	Some have questioned why we have reversed the decision that we took in 1998 to give refugees immediate settlement; indeed, my hon. Friend raised that very point. He also anticipated the answer: we believe that the decision was the right one given the circumstances of the time and the immigration system that we inherited from the Conservatives, which was, as he will remember perhaps better than anybody, a system that was in crisis with huge backlogs. As a result, a large number of asylum seekers had been in the UK for many years before receiving decisionseven initial decisionson their applications.
	It is important to contrast that with the picture today. Backlogs in the system are at their lowest level for a decade. Asylum intake is back to 1997 levels and has fallen further and faster than in the EU as a whole in recent years. It was 76 per cent. lower in the UK in the second quarter of 2005 compared with the peak in October 2002, and 32 per cent. lower in the UK in 2004 than in 2003. That is the essential context of this debate, and it is largely the result of action that the Government have taken to increase the efficiency of the asylum process. More than 80 per cent. of initial decisions are now made within two months. We have brought forward legislation to deter unfounded asylum claims. As my hon. Friend knows, there have been three major pieces of legislation since 1997, as well as the Bill currently before the House on which detailed consideration will begin next week.
	We believe that that process of reform should continue, and we are rolling out what we call the new asylum model that will result in tighter case management of asylum claims through to the final outcome, whether that be integration or removal. The new policy of limited leave for refugees is a return to one of the basic principles of the Geneva conventionthat generally someone is a refugee only for as long as the conditions that mean that they will be at risk of persecution continue to exist. It brings the UK into line with most other European countriesthat is an important point to stress. France, Germany, Spain, the Netherlands and Denmark, for example, all require a refugee to complete a period of temporary leave before applying for permanent residence. Refugees are now granted five years' limited leave from day one, which mayI stress that wordbe subject to review if they bring themselves within the scope of the refugee convention's exclusion or cessation clauses through their own actions: for example, where a person commits a terrorist act or re-establishes himself in his country of origin.
	Those triggers for review are not new. The new element is that refugee status and limited leave mayagain, I stress that wordalso be reviewed where there is a significant and non-temporary change in conditions in a country or part of a country that places in doubt the continuing need for protection in the UK of all or certain groups of refugees from that country or part of it. We would determine that such changes had taken place on the basis of objective country information. When we determine on the basis of that information, and other sources such as case law, that certain categories of claim are likely to be clearly unfounded and that the change is of a durable nature, we will consider whether to instigate a review of previous grants of refugee status and limited leave to those falling within the scope of those categories.
	However, I can give my hon. Friend assurances on a number of points, and I hope that they will go some way towards reassuring him. First, any review will be conducted on a case-by-case basis, and the burden of proof will be on the immigration and nationality directorate

Helen Goodman: The Minister makes an important point about addressing this on a case-by-case basis. He said earlier that one of the key things about the policy is that it should be reasonable. I put it to him that its whole approach has been drafted from the perspective of adults, not children. Five years is a long time for a child to be in one country. Will special account be taken of situations involving families with children? To have one's childhood torn up once is a tragedy, but to have it torn up twice is devastating.

Andy Burnham: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's point. I stress again that the review will be conducted on a case-by-case basis. The circumstances, such as country conditions, will be the trigger for a review but the factors that she mentions will be taken into account in any review of a specific case. I am sure that my hon. Friend believes as we do in the Home Office that that is the right thing to do. Reviews will be conducted on a case-by-case basis and the burden of proof will be on the IND to determine whether the individual continues to qualify for refugee status and limited leave.
	The second assurance is that any decision to trigger a review on the basis of a change in country conditions will be made only following consultation with the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees.

John McDonnell: Will the trigger mechanism for a specific case and country be reported to the House for debate?

Andy Burnham: I was about to deal with that point, which is very fair. The third assurance is that the scope of the review, before its conclusions had been reached, would be communicated to the House through a written ministerial statement.

Simon Hughes: The Under-Secretary will have heard last week's reports about regular criticisms of the country reports as inaccurate. The new process is welcome but it is no good if the reports that lead to the decision are inaccurate and therefore give wrong information that could prove fatal if someone is sent back to much more dangerous circumstances than the country report suggests.

Andy Burnham: The hon. Gentleman raises an important point. The quality of the country reports is obviously crucial in reaching a reasoned and fair judgment on the conditions and circumstances that exist in a country. The reports originate in the Foreign Office. The hon. Gentleman will have seen some of them. The material is drawn from many different sources; the documents are well grounded. If he considers the recent process that we went through on Zimbabwe, great effort was made and care taken to establish the conditions in that country. I can give him the assurance that he wants. We will continue to take great care in establishing facts on the ground before taking further action. We do not want to act on wrong or misleading information.
	We are ensuring through the Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Bill that refugees will have an in-country right of appeal against a decision to take away their leave and that the decision will not take effect until that appeal has been heard. I can further assure my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow that when an individual no longer qualifies for leave as a refugee, we would always consider whether a grant of leave on another basis was appropriate, for example, on European convention on human rights grounds. Although it is possible that some refugees will be allowed to remain because they have established a private and/or family life in the UK, we need to get the balance right between offering a family a permanent life in the UK and expecting them to return to their country of origin if conditions improve there.

Neil Gerrard: The more I listen to the description of the mechanism that will operate, the more I wonder whether we want it. The Home Office has enough to doit has enough backlogs for years. Do we genuinely want to take on all the work of reviewing cases and clogging up the appeals system for the relatively small number of people who are given full refugees status? For that small number, the decisions are tremendously important. From the Home Office point of view, are the benefits of the new mechanism worth all the effort?

Andy Burnham: I shall describe some of the exact processes of the review shortly. I believe that that will give my hon. Friend some assurance about the work load for the Home Office. I stress that we are not considering a system that will continue as it has done in the past. We do not want an overloaded and sclerotic system, from which people cannot get clarity or a decision. We have enabled claims to be decided much more quickly, and we want the system to be able to function quickly and to give people clarity in a much more timely manner than we have achieved hitherto. I think that my hon. Friend would accept that one of the problems with the old way of doing things was that people were left in limbo for so long.

Michael Jabez Foster: My hon. Friend the Minister has gone to a great deal of trouble to explain what he intends to do, but he appears to be developing a very complex system, as my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Gerrard) says. Has the Minister made any assessment of the obligations and costs that these measures will place on his office, and of whether any extra resources will be provided to support this complex system of review?

Andy Burnham: Yes, we have. I think it will be of interest to my hon. Friend if I describe some of the ways in which the measures will work in practice. The ability to move cases through the system more quickly has enabled staff time and resources to be deployed in different ways, and we have obviously weighed up those considerations, but if I describe the system, it might make more sense.
	A number of hon. Members have given the impression that the new policy will leave a sword of Damocles hanging over the heads of all refugees for up to five years. I do not believe that that will be the case. Nor do I accept that the Asylum and Immigration Tribunal will be swamped with appeals flowing from decisions to curtail leave granted to refugees. Many of the countries that generate large numbers of refugees, regrettably for those who live there, are unlikely to become safe and stable within the next few years. I anticipate that declarations that country conditions have changed will be used sparingly. The Government consider, however, that it is right in principle to undertake a case-by-case review of grants of refugee status and limited leave when there is a significant and durable change in a particular country affecting some or all categories of claims. I stress again, however, that many of the countries that we are talking about are unlikely to reach the position in which there would be a trigger for review. We all know from our constituency postbags that not many countries have experienced such a change in in-country conditions as to warrant the kind of review that we are discussing.
	If a refugee completes five years' leave without a review having been triggered, there will not be an in-depth review of their case as a matter of routine when they apply for settlement before the expiry of their leave. We would, however, check to ensure that the triggers for review on the basis of the cessation clauses had not previously been missed. We would also check for evidence of serious criminality or exclusion.
	Some have suggested that the change of policy will have a damaging effect on refugees' entitlement to benefits and services, and undermine their integration into the UK. I am clear that this is not the case. Refugees continue to have access to key mainstream benefits, as well as to social housing and to employment. The Government are committed to ensuring that refugees are able to contribute to their communities while they are in the UK, and to participate fully in our economy and society. For that reason, they will retain access to a whole range of assistance, including personal integration plans, mentoring and integration loans. Indeed, we are currently legislating to ensure that refugees with limited leave will have access to such loans. By promoting integration, we will ensure that refugees can contribute fully to the life of the UK while they are here. If conditions improve sufficiently to allow them to return home, the skills that they have acquired here should stand them in good stead for the future.
	I do not believe that my hon. Friend is right to say that the measures will set back the good work that has been done on integration in communities up and down the country. We are currently embarking on the reform of the National Refugee Integration Forum, and considering what further steps we can take to ensure that refugee integration is improved and that we build on the successes that exist. I do not believe that that necessarily means that there should be any backward steps in that regard.
	Finally, I want to touch on the position of resettled refugees and changes to humanitarian policy. We have decided that refugees arriving in the UK under resettlement programmes such as Gateway should continue to get immediate indefinite leave to remain. These refugees have been outside their countries of origin for many years and have no realistic prospect of returning there. Many are held in UN camps in different parts of the world. Integration in the first country to which they have fled is often not possible. Indeed, these are the refugees who have suffered the most stress and trauma before their arrival
	The motion having been made at Ten o'clock, and the debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. Speaker adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
	Adjourned accordingly at half-past Ten o'clock.